-
Dahlberg, I.: Information Coding Classification : Geschichtliches, Prinzipien, Inhaltliches (2010)
0.00
0.001353075 = product of:
0.00270615 = sum of:
0.00270615 = product of:
0.0054123 = sum of:
0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 4057) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0054123 = score(doc=4057,freq=2.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 4057, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4057)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Type
- a
-
Rout, R.; Panigrahi, P.: Revisiting Ranganathan's canons in online cataloguing environment (2015)
0.00
0.001353075 = product of:
0.00270615 = sum of:
0.00270615 = product of:
0.0054123 = sum of:
0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 2796) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0054123 = score(doc=2796,freq=2.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 2796, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2796)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Type
- a
-
Montoya, R.D.: Parsimony in biological and colon classifications (2018)
0.00
0.001353075 = product of:
0.00270615 = sum of:
0.00270615 = product of:
0.0054123 = sum of:
0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 4754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0054123 = score(doc=4754,freq=2.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 4754, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4754)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Type
- a
-
Dutta, B.: Ranganathan's elucidation of subject in the light of 'Infinity (8)' (2015)
0.00
0.0011959607 = product of:
0.0023919214 = sum of:
0.0023919214 = product of:
0.0047838427 = sum of:
0.0047838427 = weight(_text_:a in 2794) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0047838427 = score(doc=2794,freq=4.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 2794, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2794)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This paper reviews Ranganathan's description of subject from mathematical angle. Ranganathan was highly influenced by Nineteenth Century mathematician George Cantor and he used the concept of infinity in developing an axiomatic interpretation of subject. Majority of library scientists interpreted the concept of subject merely as a term or descriptor or heading to include the same in cataloguing and subject indexing. Some library scientists interpreted subject on the basis of document, i.e. from the angle of the concept of aboutness or epistemological potential of the document etc. Some people explained subject from the viewpoint of social, cultural or socio-cultural process. Attempts were made to describe subject from epistemological viewpoint. But S R Ranganathan was the first to develop an axiomatic concept of subject on its own. He built up an independent idea of subject that is ubiquitously pervasive with human cognition process. To develop the basic foundation of subject, he used the mathematical concepts of infinity and infinitesimal and construed the set of subjects or universe of subjects as continuous infinite universe. The subject may also exist in extremely micro-form, which was termed as spot subject and analogized with point, which is dimensionless having only an existence. The influence of Twentieth Century physicist George Gamow on Ranganathan's thought has also been discussed.
- Type
- a
-
Green, R.: Facet analysis and semantic frames (2017)
0.00
0.0011959607 = product of:
0.0023919214 = sum of:
0.0023919214 = product of:
0.0047838427 = sum of:
0.0047838427 = weight(_text_:a in 3849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0047838427 = score(doc=3849,freq=4.0), product of:
0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046056706 = queryNorm
0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 3849, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3849)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Various fields, each with its own theories, techniques, and tools, are concerned with identifying and representing the conceptual structure of specific knowledge domains. This paper compares facet analysis, an analytic technique coming out of knowledge organization (especially as undertaken by members of the Classification Research Group (CRG)), with semantic frame analysis, an analytic technique coming out of lexical semantics (especially as undertaken by the developers of Frame-Net) The investigation addresses three questions: 1) how do CRG-style facet analysis and semantic frame analysis characterize the conceptual structures that they identify?; 2) how similar are the techniques they use?; and, 3) how similar are the conceptual structures they produce? Facet analysis is concerned with the logical categories underlying the terminology of an entire field, while semantic frame analysis is concerned with the participant-and-prop structure manifest in sentences about a type of situation or event. When their scope of application is similar, as, for example, in the areas of the performing arts or education, the resulting facets and semantic frame elements often bear striking resemblance, without being the same; facets are more often expressed as semantic types, while frame elements are more often expressed as roles.
- Type
- a
