Search (77 results, page 1 of 4)

0.22662696 = product of:
  0.3777116 = sum of:
    0.025729544 = weight(_text_:of in 2943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025729544 = score(doc=2943,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 2943, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2943)
    0.13459633 = weight(_text_:subject in 2943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13459633 = score(doc=2943,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.77435577 = fieldWeight in 2943, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2943)
    0.21738571 = sum of:
      0.14289145 = weight(_text_:headings in 2943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.14289145 = score(doc=2943,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.23569997 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04859849 = queryNorm
          0.606243 = fieldWeight in 2943, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2943)
      0.07449426 = weight(_text_:22 in 2943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07449426 = score(doc=2943,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17018363 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04859849 = queryNorm
          0.4377287 = fieldWeight in 2943, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2943)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Describes the developments of the Statistical System for Subject Designation (SSSD): a syntactical system for subject designation for libraries in Croatia, based on the construction of subject headings in agreement with the theory of the sentence nature of subject headings. The discussion is preceded by a brief summary of theories underlying basic principles and fundamental rules of the alphabetical subject catalogue

Date

31. 7.2006 14:22:21

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 22(1996) no.1, S.77-93

0.13916703 = product of:
  0.23194504 = sum of:
    0.021008085 = weight(_text_:of in 1592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021008085 = score(doc=1592,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 1592, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1592)
    0.10989744 = weight(_text_:subject in 1592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10989744 = score(doc=1592,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.63225883 = fieldWeight in 1592, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1592)
    0.10103952 = product of:
      0.20207904 = sum of:
        0.20207904 = weight(_text_:headings in 1592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.20207904 = score(doc=1592,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23569997 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.8573571 = fieldWeight in 1592, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1592)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

0.13838477 = product of:
  0.23064128 = sum of:
    0.022282438 = weight(_text_:of in 5611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022282438 = score(doc=5611,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 5611, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5611)
    0.12363462 = weight(_text_:subject in 5611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12363462 = score(doc=5611,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.7112912 = fieldWeight in 5611, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5611)
    0.08472422 = product of:
      0.16944844 = sum of:
        0.16944844 = weight(_text_:headings in 5611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16944844 = score(doc=5611,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.23569997 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.7189158 = fieldWeight in 5611, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5611)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

The IFLA Section on Classification and Indexing's Working Group on Principles Underlying Subject Headings Languages has identified a set of eleven principles for subject heading languages and excerpted the texts that match each principle from the instructions for each of eleven national subject indexing systems, including excerpts from the LC's Subject Cataloging Manual: Subject Headings. This study compares the IFLA principles with other texts that express the principles underlying LCSH, especially Library of Congress Subject Headings: Principles of Structure and Policies for Application, prepared by Lois Mai Chan for the Library of Congress in 1990, Chan's later book on LCSH, and earlier documents by Haykin and Cutter. The principles are further elaborated for clarity and discussed

Source

The LCSH century: one hundred years with the Library of Congress Subject Headings system. Ed.: A.T. Stone

0.10205839 = product of:
  0.1700973 = sum of:
    0.018382076 = weight(_text_:of in 5608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018382076 = score(doc=5608,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 5608, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5608)
    0.10751045 = weight(_text_:subject in 5608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10751045 = score(doc=5608,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.61852604 = fieldWeight in 5608, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5608)
    0.04420479 = product of:
      0.08840958 = sum of:
        0.08840958 = weight(_text_:headings in 5608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08840958 = score(doc=5608,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23569997 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.37509373 = fieldWeight in 5608, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5608)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Discusses the problems in establishing commonly accepted principles for subject retrieval between different bibliographic systems. The Working Group on Principles Underlying Subject Heading Languages was established to devise general principles for any subject retrieval system and to review existing real systems in the light of such principles and compare them in order to evaluate the extent of their coverage and their application in current practices. Provides a background and history of the Working Group. Discusses the principles underlying subject headings and their purposes and the state of the work and major findings

0.082298115 = product of:
  0.13716352 = sum of:
    0.020340992 = weight(_text_:of in 3634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020340992 = score(doc=3634,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.26765788 = fieldWeight in 3634, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3634)
    0.05494872 = weight(_text_:subject in 3634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05494872 = score(doc=3634,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.31612942 = fieldWeight in 3634, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3634)
    0.061873816 = product of:
      0.12374763 = sum of:
        0.12374763 = weight(_text_:headings in 3634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12374763 = score(doc=3634,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.23569997 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.52502185 = fieldWeight in 3634, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3634)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

In the continuing search for criteria for determining the form of compound headings (i.e., headings containing more than one word), many authors have attempted to deal with the problem of entry element and citation order. Among the proposed criteria are Cutter's concept of "significance," Kaiser's formula of "concrete/process," Prevost's "noun rule," and Farradane's categories of relationships*' (q.v.). One of the problems in applying the criteria has been the difficulty in determining what is "significant," particularly when two or more words in the heading all refer to concrete objects. In the following excerpt from Subject Catalogues: Headings and Structure, a widely cited book an the alphabetical subject catalog, E. J. Coates proposes the concept of "term significance," that is, "the word which evokes the clearest mental image," as the criterion for determining the entry element in a compound heading. Since a concrete object generally evokes a clearer mental image than an action or process, Coates' theory is in line with Kaiser's theory of "concrete/process" (q.v.) which Coates renamed "thing/action." For determining the citation order of component elements in a compound heading where the elements are equally "significant" (i.e., both or all evoking clear mental images), Coates proposes the use of "term relationship" as the determining factor. He has identified twenty different kinds of relationships among terms and set down the citation order for each. Another frequently encountered problem related to citation order is the determination of the entry element for a compound heading which contains a topic and a locality. Entering such headings uniformly under either the topic or the locality has proven to be infeasible in practice. Many headings of this type have the topic as the main heading, subdivided by the locality; others are entered under the locality as the main heading with the topic as the subdivision. No criteria or rules have been proposed that ensure consistency or predictability. In the following selection, Coates attempts to deal with this problem by ranking the "main areas of knowledge according to the extent to which they appear to be significantly conditioned by locality." The theory Coates expounded in his book was put into practice in compiling the British Technology Index for which Coates served as the editor from 1961 to 1977.

Footnote

Original in: Subject catalogues. London: Library Association 1960. S.50-64.

Source

Theory of subject analysis: a sourcebook. Ed.: L.M. Chan, et al

0.077477075 = product of:
  0.12912846 = sum of:
    0.020760437 = weight(_text_:of in 3866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020760437 = score(doc=3866,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 3866, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3866)
    0.07679317 = weight(_text_:subject in 3866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07679317 = score(doc=3866,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.4418043 = fieldWeight in 3866, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3866)
    0.03157485 = product of:
      0.0631497 = sum of:
        0.0631497 = weight(_text_:headings in 3866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0631497 = score(doc=3866,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23569997 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.2679241 = fieldWeight in 3866, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3866)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Basic grammar can achieve most/all of the goals of facet analysis without requiring the use of facet indicators. Facet analysis is thus rendered far simpler for classificationist, classifier, and user. We compare facet analysis and grammar, and show how various facets can be represented grammatically. We then address potential challenges in employing grammar as subject classification. A detailed review of basic grammar supports the hypothesis that it is feasible to usefully employ grammatical construction in subject classification. A manageable - and programmable - set of adjustments is required as classifiers move fairly directly from sentences in a document (or object or idea) description to formulating a subject classification. The user likewise can move fairly quickly from a query to the identification of relevant works. A review of theories in linguistics indicates that a grammatical approach should reduce ambiguity while encouraging ease of use. This paper applies the recommended approach to a small sample of recently published books. It finds that the approach is feasible and results in a more precise subject description than the subject headings assigned at present. It then explores PRECIS, an indexing system developed in the 1970s. Though our approach differs from PRECIS in many important ways, the experience of PRECIS supports our conclusions regarding both feasibility and precision.

0.0664002 = product of:
  0.11066699 = sum of:
    0.018382076 = weight(_text_:of in 1395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018382076 = score(doc=1395,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 1395, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1395)
    0.04808013 = weight(_text_:subject in 1395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04808013 = score(doc=1395,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 1395, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1395)
    0.04420479 = product of:
      0.08840958 = sum of:
        0.08840958 = weight(_text_:headings in 1395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08840958 = score(doc=1395,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23569997 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.37509373 = fieldWeight in 1395, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1395)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

This article deals with the meaningful processing of information in relation to two systems of Information processing: pre-coordination and post-coordination. The different approaches are discussed, with emphasis an the need for a controlled vocabulary in information retrieval. Assigned indexing, which employs a controlled vocabulary, is described in detail. Types of indexing language can be divided into two broad groups - those using pre-coordinated terms and those depending an post-coordination. They represent two different basic approaches in processing and Information retrieval. The historical development of these two approaches is described, as well as the two tools that apply to these approaches: thesauri and subject headings.

0.065064594 = product of:
  0.10844098 = sum of:
    0.013645152 = weight(_text_:of in 5599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013645152 = score(doc=5599,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.17955035 = fieldWeight in 5599, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5599)
    0.041211538 = weight(_text_:subject in 5599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041211538 = score(doc=5599,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 5599, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5599)
    0.053584296 = product of:
      0.10716859 = sum of:
        0.10716859 = weight(_text_:headings in 5599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10716859 = score(doc=5599,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23569997 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.45468226 = fieldWeight in 5599, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5599)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

This paper looks at changes affecting LCSH over its 100-year history. Adopting a linguistic conceptualization, it frames these changes as relating to the semantics, syntax and pragmatics of the LCSH language. While its category semantics has remained stable over time, the LCSH relational semantics underwent a significant upheaval when a thesaural structure was imposed upon its traditional See and See also structure. Over time the LCSH syntax has become increasingly complex as it has moved from being largely enumerative to in large part synthetic. Until fairly recently the LCSH pragmatics consisted of only one rule, viz, the injunction to assign specific headings. This rule, always controversial, has become even more debated and interpreted with the move to the online environment

Source

The LCSH century: one hundred years with the Library of Congress Subject Headings system. Ed.: A.T. Stone

0.065064594 = product of:
  0.10844098 = sum of:
    0.013645152 = weight(_text_:of in 5602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013645152 = score(doc=5602,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.17955035 = fieldWeight in 5602, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5602)
    0.041211538 = weight(_text_:subject in 5602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041211538 = score(doc=5602,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 5602, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5602)
    0.053584296 = product of:
      0.10716859 = sum of:
        0.10716859 = weight(_text_:headings in 5602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10716859 = score(doc=5602,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23569997 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.45468226 = fieldWeight in 5602, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5602)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

This paper looks at changes affecting LCSH over its 100-year history. Adopting a linguistic conceptualization, it frames these changes as relating to the semantics, syntax and pragmatics of the LCSH language. While its category semantics has remained stable over time, the LCSH relational semantics underwent a significant upheaval when a thesaural structure was imposed upon its traditional See and See also structure. Over time the LCSH syntax has become increasingly complex as it has moved from being largely enumerative to in large part synthetic. Until fairly recently the LCSH pragmatics consisted of only one rule, viz, the injunction to assign specific headings. This rule, always controversial, has become even more debated and interpreted with the move to the online environment

Source

The LCSH century: one hundred years with the Library of Congress Subject Headings system. Ed.: A.T. Stone

0.051838163 = product of:
  0.08639693 = sum of:
    0.022282438 = weight(_text_:of in 3646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022282438 = score(doc=3646,freq=36.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 3646, product of:
          6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
            36.0 = termFreq=36.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3646)
    0.038854614 = weight(_text_:subject in 3646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038854614 = score(doc=3646,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.22353725 = fieldWeight in 3646, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3646)
    0.02525988 = product of:
      0.05051976 = sum of:
        0.05051976 = weight(_text_:headings in 3646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05051976 = score(doc=3646,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23569997 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.21433927 = fieldWeight in 3646, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3646)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

The use of diagrams to express relationships in classification is not new. Many classificationists have used this approach, but usually in a minor display to make a point or for part of a difficult relational situation. Ranganathan, for example, used diagrams for some of his more elusive concepts. The thesaurus in particular and subject headings in general, with direct and indirect crossreferences or equivalents, need many more diagrams than normally are included to make relationships and even semantics clear. A picture very often is worth a thousand words. Rolling has used directed graphs (arrowgraphs) to join terms as a practical method for rendering relationships between indexing terms lucid. He has succeeded very weIl in this endeavor. Four diagrams in this selection are all that one needs to explain how to employ the system; from initial listing to completed arrowgraph. The samples of his work include illustration of off-page connectors between arrowgraphs. The great advantage to using diagrams like this is that they present relations between individual terms in a format that is easy to comprehend. But of even greater value is the fact that one can use his arrowgraphs as schematics for making three-dimensional wire-and-ball models, in which the relationships may be seen even more clearly. In fact, errors or gaps in relations are much easier to find with this methodology. One also can get across the notion of the threedimensionality of classification systems with such models. Pettee's "hand reaching up and over" (q.v.) is not a figment of the imagination. While the actual hand is a wire or stick, the concept visualized is helpful in illuminating the three-dimensional figure that is latent in all systems that have cross-references or "broader," "narrower," or, especially, "related" terms. Classification schedules, being hemmed in by the dimensions of the printed page, also benefit from such physical illustrations. Rolling, an engineer by conviction, was the developer of information systems for the Cobalt Institute, the European Atomic Energy Community, and European Coal and Steel Community. He also developed and promoted computer-aided translation at the Commission of the European Communities in Luxembourg. One of his objectives has always been to increase the efficiency of mono- and multilingual thesauri for use in multinational information systems.

Footnote

Original in: Classification research: Proceedings of the Second International Study Conference held at Hotel Prins Hamlet, Elsinore, Denmark, 14th-18th Sept. 1964. Ed.: Pauline Atherton. Copenhagen: Munksgaard 1965. S.295-310.

Source

Theory of subject analysis: a sourcebook. Ed.: L.M. Chan, et al

0.04457959 = product of:
  0.11144897 = sum of:
    0.019297158 = weight(_text_:of in 5683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019297158 = score(doc=5683,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 5683, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5683)
    0.09215181 = weight(_text_:subject in 5683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09215181 = score(doc=5683,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.5301652 = fieldWeight in 5683, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5683)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The existence of subject indexing languages does not call for or imply a particular authority control system exclusively dedicated to subject entries. To be really effective and efficient, authority control must be concerned with all the categories of entities, and must regard not just the form but also the meaning and the semantic relations of the expressions used to identify the single entities. Thus, it satisfies the lexical needs of all cataloguing languages, including subject indexing languages. It is not correct nor opportune to extend authority control to the syntactic constructions of subject indexing languages, because this reduces the rigor and efficiency of the control process, weighing it down until it becomes unfeasible, and impeding its function as a unifying element between the different cataloguing languages.

0.040478792 = product of:
  0.10119698 = sum of:
    0.023487754 = weight(_text_:of in 834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023487754 = score(doc=834,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 834, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=834)
    0.07770923 = weight(_text_:subject in 834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07770923 = score(doc=834,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.4470745 = fieldWeight in 834, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=834)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Index language (the system of symbols for representing subject content after analysis) is considered as a separate component and a variable in an information retrieval system. It is suggested that for purposes of testing, comparing and evaluating index language, the techniques of structural linguistics may provide a descriptive methodology by which all such languages (hierarchical and faceted classification, analytico-synthetic indexing, traditional subject indexing, indexes and classifications based on automatic text analysis, etc.) could be described in term of a linguistic model, and compared on a common basis

0.039271656 = product of:
  0.09817914 = sum of:
    0.015756065 = weight(_text_:of in 27) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015756065 = score(doc=27,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 27, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=27)
    0.082423076 = weight(_text_:subject in 27) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.082423076 = score(doc=27,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.4741941 = fieldWeight in 27, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=27)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Source

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

0.035418946 = product of:
  0.088547364 = sum of:
    0.020551786 = weight(_text_:of in 2919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020551786 = score(doc=2919,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 2919, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2919)
    0.06799558 = weight(_text_:subject in 2919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06799558 = score(doc=2919,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.3911902 = fieldWeight in 2919, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2919)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This study tested the hypothesis that the vocabulary of a discipline whose major emphasis is on concrete phenomena will, on the average, have fewer synonyms per concept than will the vocabulary of a discipline whose major emphasis is on abstract phenomena. Subject terms from each of two concrete disciplines and two abstract disciplines were analysed. Results showed that there was a significant difference at the 05 level between concrete and abstract disciplines but that the significant difference was attributable to only one of the abstract disciplines. The other abstract discipline was not significantly different from the two concrete disciplines. It was concluded that although thee is some support for the hypothesis, at least one other factor has a stronger influence on terminological consistency than the phenomena with which a subject deals

Source

Journal of documentation. 40(1984), S.247-263

0.034901842 = product of:
  0.087254606 = sum of:
    0.0185687 = weight(_text_:of in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0185687 = score(doc=1634,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 1634, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1634)
    0.068685904 = weight(_text_:subject in 1634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068685904 = score(doc=1634,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.39516178 = fieldWeight in 1634, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1634)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Source

Subject indexing: principles and practices in the 90's. Proceedings of the IFLA Satellite Meeting Held in Lisbon, Portugal, 17-18 August 1993, and sponsored by the IFLA Section on Classification and Indexing and the Instituto da Biblioteca Nacional e do Livro, Lisbon, Portugal. Ed.: R.P. Holley et al

0.03356597 = product of:
  0.08391492 = sum of:
    0.015919344 = weight(_text_:of in 42) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015919344 = score(doc=42,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 42, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=42)
    0.06799558 = weight(_text_:subject in 42) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06799558 = score(doc=42,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.3911902 = fieldWeight in 42, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=42)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Parent-Child relationships in MeSH trees were surveyed and described, and their patterns in the relational structure were determined for selected broad subject categories and subcategories. Is-a relationships dominated and were more prevalent overall than previously reported; however, an additional 67 different relationships were also seen, most of them nonhierarchical. Relational profiles were found to vary both within and among subject subdomains, but tended to display characteristic domain patterns. The implications for inferential reasoning and other cognitive and computational operations on hierarchical structures are considered

Source

Structures and relations in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the 5th International ISKO-Conference, Lille, 25.-29.8.1998. Ed.: W. Mustafa el Hadi et al

0.033035967 = product of:
  0.055059943 = sum of:
    0.019497134 = weight(_text_:of in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019497134 = score(doc=3644,freq=36.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.25655392 = fieldWeight in 3644, product of:
          6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
            36.0 = termFreq=36.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3644)
    0.024040066 = weight(_text_:subject in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024040066 = score(doc=3644,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.13830662 = fieldWeight in 3644, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3644)
    0.011522743 = product of:
      0.023045486 = sum of:
        0.023045486 = weight(_text_:22 in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023045486 = score(doc=3644,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17018363 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 3644, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3644)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Calvin Mooers' work toward the resolution of the problem of ambiguity in indexing went unrecognized for years. At the time he introduced the "descriptor" - a term with a very distinct meaning-indexers were, for the most part, taking index terms directly from the document, without either rationalizing them with context or normalizing them with some kind of classification. It is ironic that Mooers' term came to be attached to the popular but unsophisticated indexing methods which he was trying to root out. Simply expressed, what Mooers did was to take the dictionary definitions of terms and redefine them so clearly that they could not be used in any context except that provided by the new definition. He did, at great pains, construct such meanings for over four hundred words; disambiguation and specificity were sought after and found for these words. He proposed that all indexers adopt this method so that when the index supplied a term, it also supplied the exact meaning for that term as used in the indexed document. The same term used differently in another document would be defined differently and possibly renamed to avoid ambiguity. The disambiguation was achieved by using unabridged dictionaries and other sources of defining terminology. In practice, this tends to produce circularity in definition, that is, word A refers to word B which refers to word C which refers to word A. It was necessary, therefore, to break this chain by creating a new, definitive meaning for each word. Eventually, means such as those used by Austin (q.v.) for PRECIS achieved the same purpose, but by much more complex means than just creating a unique definition of each term. Mooers, however, was probably the first to realize how confusing undefined terminology could be. Early automatic indexers dealt with distinct disciplines and, as long as they did not stray beyond disciplinary boundaries, a quick and dirty keyword approach was satisfactory. The trouble came when attempts were made to make a combined index for two or more distinct disciplines. A number of processes have since been developed, mostly involving tagging of some kind or use of strings. Mooers' solution has rarely been considered seriously and probably would be extremely difficult to apply now because of so much interdisciplinarity. But for a specific, weIl defined field, it is still weIl worth considering. Mooers received training in mathematics and physics from the University of Minnesota and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He was the founder of Zator Company, which developed and marketed a coded card information retrieval system, and of Rockford Research, Inc., which engages in research in information science. He is the inventor of the TRAC computer language.

Footnote

Original in: Information retrieval today: papers presented at an Institute conducted by the Library School and the Center for Continuation Study, University of Minnesota, Sept. 19-22, 1962. Ed. by Wesley Simonton. Minneapolis, Minn.: The Center, 1963. S.21-36.

Source

Theory of subject analysis: a sourcebook. Ed.: L.M. Chan, et al

0.032766405 = product of:
  0.08191601 = sum of:
    0.023634095 = weight(_text_:of in 1148) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023634095 = score(doc=1148,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 1148, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1148)
    0.058281917 = weight(_text_:subject in 1148) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058281917 = score(doc=1148,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.33530587 = fieldWeight in 1148, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1148)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Relationships between the terms in thesauri and Indexes are the subject of national and international standards. The standards for thesauri enumerate and provide criteria for three basic types of relationship: equivalence, hierarchical, and associative. Standards and guidelines for indexes draw an the thesaurus standards to provide less detailed guidance for showing relationships between the terms used in an Index. The international standard for multilingual thesauri adds recommendations for assuring equal treatment of the languages of a thesaurus. The present standards were developed when lookup and search were essentially manual, and the value of the kinds of relationships has never been determined. It is not clear whether users understand or can use the distinctions between kinds of relationships. On the other hand, sophisticated text analysis systems may be able both to assist with development of more powerful term relationship schemes and to use the relationships to improve retrieval.

Source

Relationships in the organization of knowledge. Eds.: Bean, C.A. u. R. Green

0.03196753 = product of:
  0.07991882 = sum of:
    0.03183869 = weight(_text_:of in 6036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03183869 = score(doc=6036,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.41895083 = fieldWeight in 6036, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6036)
    0.04808013 = weight(_text_:subject in 6036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04808013 = score(doc=6036,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 6036, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6036)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The notion of category, from Aristotle and Kant to the present time, has been used as a basic intellectual tool for the analysis of the existence and changeableness of things. Ranganathan was the first to extrapolate the concept into the Theory of Classification, placing it as an essential axis for the logical organization of knowledge and the construction of indexing languages. This paper proposes a conceptual and methodological reexamination of the notion of category from a functional and instrumental perspective, and tries to clarify the essential characters of categories in that context, and their present implications regarding the construction and evaluation of indexing languages

0.031374592 = product of:
  0.07843648 = sum of:
    0.023487754 = weight(_text_:of in 1145) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023487754 = score(doc=1145,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 1145, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1145)
    0.05494872 = weight(_text_:subject in 1145) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05494872 = score(doc=1145,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.31612942 = fieldWeight in 1145, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1145)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The structure of terminology systems can be seen as one way to organize knowledge. This paper focuses an three types of relationships among terms: synonymy, hierarchical relationships, and explicit mapping relationships. Examples drawn from various medical vocabularies illustrate each type of relationship. The integration of disparate terminological knowledge structures in the Unified Medical Language System is presented and discussed.

Source

Relationships in the organization of knowledge. Eds.: Bean, C.A. u. R. Green