Search (40 results, page 1 of 2)

0.1369048 = product of:
  0.342262 = sum of:
    0.24341951 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 6404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24341951 = score(doc=6404,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.28093818 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060794935 = queryNorm
        0.8664522 = fieldWeight in 6404, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6404)
    0.09884249 = weight(_text_:22 in 6404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09884249 = score(doc=6404,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2128935 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060794935 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.10838642 = product of:
  0.27096605 = sum of:
    0.17212358 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 3773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17212358 = score(doc=3773,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28093818 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060794935 = queryNorm
        0.61267424 = fieldWeight in 3773, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3773)
    0.09884249 = weight(_text_:22 in 3773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09884249 = score(doc=3773,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2128935 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060794935 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.056215327 = product of:
  0.28107664 = sum of:
    0.28107664 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 2020) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.28107664 = score(doc=2020,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.28093818 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060794935 = queryNorm
        1.0004928 = fieldWeight in 2020, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2020)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

Überblick über Aufgaben und Aufbau eines Thesaurus. Aufwand für Herstellung von Thesauri. Begriffe und Begriffsbenennungen. Klassifikationssystem und Thesaurus und ihre Funktionen in einem Dokumentationssystem. Thesaurus-Struktur. Thesaurus-Format. Arbeitsablauf der Thesaurus-Herstellung. Regeln für Begriffsbenennungen, Rechtschreibung u.ä. Weiterentwicklung von Thesauri. Thesauri als Grundlage für kooperative Dokumentation.

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.05419321 = product of:
  0.13548303 = sum of:
    0.08606179 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08606179 = score(doc=1428,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28093818 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060794935 = queryNorm
        0.30633712 = fieldWeight in 1428, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1428)
    0.049421243 = weight(_text_:22 in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049421243 = score(doc=1428,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2128935 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060794935 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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

0.048683904 = product of:
  0.24341951 = sum of:
    0.24341951 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 2943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24341951 = score(doc=2943,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.28093818 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060794935 = queryNorm
        0.8664522 = fieldWeight in 2943, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2943)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.045161013 = product of:
  0.11290253 = sum of:
    0.07171816 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07171816 = score(doc=5562,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28093818 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060794935 = queryNorm
        0.2552809 = fieldWeight in 5562, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5562)
    0.041184373 = weight(_text_:22 in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041184373 = score(doc=5562,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2128935 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060794935 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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

0.029812682 = product of:
  0.14906341 = sum of:
    0.14906341 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 2687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14906341 = score(doc=2687,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.28093818 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060794935 = queryNorm
        0.5305915 = fieldWeight in 2687, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2687)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Ontological structures can aid the understanding and modelling of works of art. Ontology of the aesthetic object, and particularly of the literary work, has been analysed by Hartmann and Ingarden. Application of Dahlberg's ontical 'systematifier' model enabled us to organize the entire structure of the Thesaurus of Italian Literature, and to highlight a number of significant aspects of the literary work. After describing the conclusions arising from the experience of compiling the thesaurus, the paper briefly outlines Hartmann's and Ingarden's theories of levels and seeks to identify commonalities between the ontological analysis of the two theories and the conclusions of the thesaurus.

0.026835246 = product of:
  0.13417622 = sum of:
    0.13417622 = weight(_text_:objects in 4308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13417622 = score(doc=4308,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.3231294 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060794935 = queryNorm
        0.41523993 = fieldWeight in 4308, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4308)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

One of the main topics of scientific research, classification is the operation consisting of distributing objects in classes or groups which are, in general, less numerous than them. From Antiquity to the Classical Age, it has a long history where philosophers (Aristotle), and natural scientists (Linnaeus), took a great part. But from the nineteenth century (with the growth of chemistry and information science) and the twentieth century (with the arrival of mathematical models and computer science), mathematics (especially theory of orders and theory of graphs or hypergraphs) allows us to compute all the possible partitions, chains of partitions, covers, hypergraphs or systems of classes we can construct on a domain. In spite of these advances, most of classifications are still based on the evaluation of ressemblances between objects that constitute the empirical data. However, all these classifications remain, for technical and epistemological reasons we detail below, very unstable ones. We lack a real algebra of classifications, which could explain their properties and the relations existing between them. Though the aim of a general theory of classifications is surely a wishful thought, some recent conjecture gives the hope that the existence of a metaclassification (or classification of all classification schemes) is possible

0.026565535 = product of:
  0.13282767 = sum of:
    0.13282767 = weight(_text_:objects in 5145) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13282767 = score(doc=5145,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3231294 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060794935 = queryNorm
        0.41106653 = fieldWeight in 5145, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5145)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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

0.02277046 = product of:
  0.1138523 = sum of:
    0.1138523 = weight(_text_:objects in 2631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1138523 = score(doc=2631,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3231294 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060794935 = queryNorm
        0.35234275 = fieldWeight in 2631, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2631)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The paper examines the way in which classification schemes can be applied to the organization of digital resources. The case is argued for the particular suitability of schemes based an faceted principles for the organization of complex digital objects. Details are given of a co-operative project between the School of Library Archive & Information Studies, University College London, and the United Kingdom Higher Education gateways Arts and Humanities Data Service and Humbul, in which a faceted knowledge structure is being developed for the indexing and display of digital materials within a new combined humanities portal.

0.02277046 = product of:
  0.1138523 = sum of:
    0.1138523 = weight(_text_:objects in 2204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1138523 = score(doc=2204,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3231294 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060794935 = queryNorm
        0.35234275 = fieldWeight in 2204, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2204)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.020081086 = product of:
  0.100405425 = sum of:
    0.100405425 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 4940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.100405425 = score(doc=4940,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28093818 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060794935 = queryNorm
        0.3573933 = fieldWeight in 4940, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4940)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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

0.020081086 = product of:
  0.100405425 = sum of:
    0.100405425 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 5659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.100405425 = score(doc=5659,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28093818 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060794935 = queryNorm
        0.3573933 = fieldWeight in 5659, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5659)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.019768497 = product of:
  0.09884249 = sum of:
    0.09884249 = weight(_text_:22 in 3176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09884249 = score(doc=3176,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2128935 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060794935 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

6. 5.2017 18:46:22

0.019244002 = product of:
  0.09622001 = sum of:
    0.09622001 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 2072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09622001 = score(doc=2072,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.28093818 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060794935 = queryNorm
        0.34249532 = fieldWeight in 2072, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2072)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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

0.018975385 = product of:
  0.09487692 = sum of:
    0.09487692 = weight(_text_:objects in 5895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09487692 = score(doc=5895,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3231294 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060794935 = queryNorm
        0.29361898 = fieldWeight in 5895, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5895)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

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

0.018975385 = product of:
  0.09487692 = sum of:
    0.09487692 = weight(_text_:objects in 2281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09487692 = score(doc=2281,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3231294 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060794935 = queryNorm
        0.29361898 = fieldWeight in 2281, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2281)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.018975385 = product of:
  0.09487692 = sum of:
    0.09487692 = weight(_text_:objects in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09487692 = score(doc=789,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3231294 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060794935 = queryNorm
        0.29361898 = fieldWeight in 789, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=789)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Any ontological theory commits us to accept and classify a number of phenomena in a more or less specific way-and vice versa: a classification tends to reveal the theoretical outlook of its creator. Objects and their descriptions and relations are not just "given," but determined by theories. Knowledge is fallible, and consensus is rare. By implication, knowledge organization has to consider different theories/views and their foundations. Bibliographical classifications depend on subject knowledge and on the same theories as corresponding scientific and scholarly classifications. Some classifications are based on logical distinctions, others on empirical examinations, and some on mappings of common ancestors or on establishing functional criteria. To evaluate a classification is to involve oneself in the research which has produced the given classification. Because research is always based more or less on specific epistemological ideals (e.g., empiricism, rationalism, historicism, or pragmatism), the evaluation of classification includes the evaluation of the epistemological foundations of the research on which given classifications have been based. The field of knowledge organization itself is based on different approaches and traditions such as user-based and cognitive views, facet-analytical views, numeric taxonomic approaches, bibliometrics, and domain-analytic approaches. These approaches and traditions are again connected to epistemological views, which have to be considered. Only the domain-analytic view is fully committed to exploring knowledge organization in the light of subject knowledge and substantial scholarly theories.

0.016227966 = product of:
  0.08113983 = sum of:
    0.08113983 = weight(_text_:thesaurus in 311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08113983 = score(doc=311,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.28093818 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060794935 = queryNorm
        0.2888174 = fieldWeight in 311, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6210785 = idf(docFreq=1182, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=311)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Methodology Based on information from research papers, more research was done on SKOS and examples of SKOS and shared faceted classifications in the Semantic Web and about SKOS and how to express SKOS in RDF/XML. Once confident with these ideas, the author used a faceted taxonomy created in a Vocabulary Design class and encoded it using SKOS. Instead of writing RDF in a program such as Notepad, a thesaurus tool was used to create the taxonomy according to SKOS standards and then export the thesaurus in RDF/XML format. These processes and tools are then analyzed. Results The initial statement of the problem was simply an extension of the survey paper done earlier in this class. To continue on with the research, more research was done into SKOS - a standard for expressing thesauri, taxonomies and faceted classifications so they can be shared on the semantic web.

0.0132827675 = product of:
  0.066413835 = sum of:
    0.066413835 = weight(_text_:objects in 1782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066413835 = score(doc=1782,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3231294 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.060794935 = queryNorm
        0.20553327 = fieldWeight in 1782, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1782)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

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