Search (75 results, page 4 of 4)

0.0016629322 = product of:
  0.009977593 = sum of:
    0.009977593 = weight(_text_:in in 1856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009977593 = score(doc=1856,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.16802745 = fieldWeight in 1856, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1856)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

During the twentieth century, bibliographic classification theory underwent a structural revolution. The first modern bibliographic classifications were top-down systems that started at the universe of knowledge and subdivided that universe downward to minute subclasses. After the invention of faceted classification by S.R. Ranganathan, the ideal was to build bottom-up classifications that started with the universe of concepts and built upward to larger and larger faceted classes. This ideal has not been achieved, and the two kinds of classification systems are not mutually exclusive. This paper examines the process by which this structural revolution was accomplished by looking at the spread of facet theory after 1924 when Ranganathan attended the School of Librarianship, London, through selected classification textbooks that were published after that date. To this end, the paper examines the role of W.C.B. Sayers as a teacher and author of three editions of The Manual of Classification for Librarians and Bibliographers. Sayers influenced both Ranganathan and the various members of the Classification Research Group (CRG) who were his students. Further, the paper contrasts the methods of evaluating classification systems that arose between Sayers's Canons of Classification in 1915- 1916 and J. Mills's A Modern Outline of Library Classification in 1960 in order to demonstrate the speed with which one kind of classificatory structure was overtaken by another.

Content

Beitrag eines Themenheftes "Facets: a fruitful notion in many domains".

0.0015457221 = product of:
  0.009274333 = sum of:
    0.009274333 = weight(_text_:in in 5406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009274333 = score(doc=5406,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 5406, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5406)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

S R Ranganathan's ideas have influenced library classification since the inception of his Colon Classification in 1933. His address at Elsinore, "Library Classification Through a Century", was his grand vision of the century of progress in classification from 1876 to 1975, and looked to the future of faceted classification as the means to provide a cohesive system to organize the world's information. Fifty years later, the internet and its achievements, social ecology, and consequences present a far more complicated picture, with the library as he knew it as a very small part and the problems that he confronted now greatly exacerbated. The systematic nature of Ranganathan's canons, principles, postulates, and devices suggest that modern semantic algorithms could guide automatic subject tagging. The vision presented here is one of internet-wide faceted classification and retrieval, implemented as open, distributed facets providing unified faceted searching across all web sites.

0.0014873719 = product of:
  0.008924231 = sum of:
    0.008924231 = weight(_text_:in in 2564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008924231 = score(doc=2564,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 2564, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2564)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.0014873719 = product of:
  0.008924231 = sum of:
    0.008924231 = weight(_text_:in in 4826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008924231 = score(doc=4826,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 4826, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4826)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Facet analysis is proposed as a general theory of knowledge organization, with an associated methodology that may be applied to the development of terminology tools in a variety of contexts and formats. Faceted classifications originated as a means of representing complexity in semantic content that facilitates logical organization and effective retrieval in a physical environment. This is achieved through meticulous analysis of concepts, their structural and functional status (based on fundamental categories), and their inter-relationships. These features provide an excellent basis for the general conceptual modelling of domains, and for the generation of KOS other than systematic classifications. This is demonstrated by the adoption of a faceted approach to many web search and visualization tools, and by the emergence of a facet based methodology for the construction of thesauri. Current work on the Bliss Bibliographic Classification (Second Edition) is investigating the ways in which the full complexity of faceted structures may be represented through encoded data, capable of generating intellectually and mechanically compatible forms of indexing tools from a single source. It is suggested that a number of research questions relating to the Semantic Web could be tackled through the medium of facet analysis.

0.0014724231 = product of:
  0.008834538 = sum of:
    0.008834538 = weight(_text_:in in 541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008834538 = score(doc=541,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 541, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=541)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Publication of the 2nd ed. of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification presents librarians with a fresh opportunity to reassess the nature and benefits of helpful order for their collections and records. Half the parts are now available, exhibiting major expansion, revision, and development of the scheme. The new edition is sponsored by the Bliss Classification Association which welcomes the views and inputs of American librarians. It has been applied to libraries and information centers and used in thesaurus construction. This edition provides intensive subject specifity through detailed term listings and full synthetic capability. The notation is designed to be as brief as possible for the detail attainable. The classification allows a large measure of flexibility in arrangement and syntax

0.0014724231 = product of:
  0.008834538 = sum of:
    0.008834538 = weight(_text_:in in 364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008834538 = score(doc=364,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 364, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=364)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In this paper, we propose a part of the methodological work to accompanying the development of a new type of Knowledge Organization System (KOS) based on faceted classification. Our approach to faceted classification differs from its traditional use. We develop a theoretical typology of professional documents based on their uses. Then we correlate these types of documents to specific types of KOS according to their degree of structural constraint and activities they aim to serve.

0.0014724231 = product of:
  0.008834538 = sum of:
    0.008834538 = weight(_text_:in in 3614) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008834538 = score(doc=3614,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.14877784 = fieldWeight in 3614, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3614)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Research history of the last 70 years highlights various systems for contents assessment and retrieval of scientific literature, such as universal classifications, thesauri, ontologies etc., which have followed developments of their own, notwithstanding a general trend towards interoperability, i.e. either to become instruments for cooperation or to widen their scope to encompass neighbouring fields within their framework. In the case of thesauri and ontologies, the endeavour to upgrade them into a universal system was bound to miscarry. This paper purports to indicate ways to gain from past experience and possibly rally material achievements while updating and promoting the ontologically-based faceted Information Coding Classification as a progressive universal system fit for meeting whatever requirements in the fields of information and science at large.

0.0012881019 = product of:
  0.007728611 = sum of:
    0.007728611 = weight(_text_:in in 4850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007728611 = score(doc=4850,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 4850, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4850)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Faceted classification is based on the core ideas that there are kinds or categories of concepts, and that compound, or non-elemental, concepts, which are ubiquitous in classification and subject annotation, are to be identified as being constructions of concepts of the different kinds. The categories of concepts are facets, and the individual concepts, which are instances of those facets, are foci. Usually, there are constraints on how the foci can be combined into the compound concepts. What is standard is that any combination of foci is permitted from kind-to-kind across facets, but that the foci within a facet are restricted in their use by virtue of being dependent on each other, either by being exclusive of each other or by bearing some kind of hierarchical relationship to each other. Thus faceted classification is typically considered to be a synthetic classification consisting of orthogonal facets which themselves are composed individually either of exclusive foci or of a hierarchy of foci. This paper addresses in particular this second exclusive-or-hierarchical foci condition. It evaluates the arguments for the condition and finds them not conclusive. It suggests that wider synthetic constructions should be allowed on foci within a facet.

0.0012881019 = product of:
  0.007728611 = sum of:
    0.007728611 = weight(_text_:in in 3183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007728611 = score(doc=3183,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 3183, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3183)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Division is obviously important to Knowledge Organization. Typically, an organizational infrastructure might acknowledge three types of connecting relationships: class hierarchies, where some classes are subclasses of others, partitive hierarchies, where some items are parts of others, and instantiation, where some items are members of some classes (see Z39.19 ANSI/NISO 2005 as an example). The first two of these involve division (the third, instantiation, does not involve division). Logical division would usually be a part of hierarchical classification systems, which, in turn, are central to shelving in libraries, to subject classification schemes, to controlled vocabularies, and to thesauri. Partitive hierarchies, and partitive division, are often essential to controlled vocabularies, thesauri, and subject tagging systems. Partitive hierarchies also relate to the bearers of information; for example, a journal would typically have its component articles as parts and, in turn, they might have sections as their parts, and, of course, components might be arrived at by partitive division (see Tillett 2009 as an illustration). Finally, verbal division, disambiguating homographs, is basic to controlled vocabularies. Thus Division is a broad and relevant topic. This article, though, is going to focus on Logical Division.

0.0012881019 = product of:
  0.007728611 = sum of:
    0.007728611 = weight(_text_:in in 3849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007728611 = score(doc=3849,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 3849, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3849)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

Content

Beitrag in einem Special Issue: Selected Papers from the International UDC Seminar 2017, Faceted Classification Today: Theory, Technology and End Users, 14-15 September, London UK.

0.0011898974 = product of:
  0.0071393843 = sum of:
    0.0071393843 = weight(_text_:in in 4521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071393843 = score(doc=4521,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 4521, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4521)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

J. Kaiser (1868-1927) developed a system of subject indexing based on what he called "concretes" and "processes" to govern the form of subject headings and subdivisions. Although Kaiser applied his systematic indexing to specialized technical and business collections, his ideas are entirely applicable to all book collections and catalogs. Though largely ignored, Kaiser's system is of permanent interest in the study of the development of subject analysis

0.0011898974 = product of:
  0.0071393843 = sum of:
    0.0071393843 = weight(_text_:in in 3132) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071393843 = score(doc=3132,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 3132, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3132)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Content

English version of a Russion paper first published in the series Sciebtific and Technical Information (Nauchno-Tekhnicheskaya Informatsya), Series 2 No.11.

0.0011898974 = product of:
  0.0071393843 = sum of:
    0.0071393843 = weight(_text_:in in 3300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071393843 = score(doc=3300,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 3300, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3300)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Content

English version of a Russion paper first published in the series Sciebtific and Technical Information (Nauchno-Tekhnicheskaya Informatsya), Series 2 No.11.

8.9242304E-4 = product of:
  0.005354538 = sum of:
    0.005354538 = weight(_text_:in in 1158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005354538 = score(doc=1158,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 1158, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1158)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Acknowledging the importance of classification not only for library and information science but also for the study and mapping of the world phenomena, in this paper we revisit and systematize the main types of classifications and focus on the species of classification mainly drawing on the work of S. R. Ranganathan. We trace the evolution of library classification systems by their structures and modes of design of various shades of classification systems and make a comparative study of enumerative and faceted species of library classifications. The value of this paper is to have a picture of the whole spectrum of existing classifications, which may serve for the study of future developments and constructions of new systems. This paper updates previous works by Comaromi and Ranganathan and is also theoretically inspired by them.

7.4368593E-4 = product of:
  0.0044621155 = sum of:
    0.0044621155 = weight(_text_:in in 4825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044621155 = score(doc=4825,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.07514416 = fieldWeight in 4825, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4825)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Freely faceted classifications allow for free combination of concepts across all knowledge domains, and for sorting of the resulting compound classmarks. Starting from work by the Classification Research Group, the Integrative Levels Classification (ILC) project has produced a first edition of a general freely faceted scheme. The system is managed as a MySQL database, and can be browsed through a Web interface. The ILC database structure provides a case for identifying and representing the structural elements of any freely faceted classification. These belong to both the notational and the verbal planes. Notational elements include: arrays, chains, deictics, facets, foci, place of definition of foci, examples of combinations, subclasses of a faceted class, groupings, related classes; verbal elements include: main caption, synonyms, descriptions, included terms, related terms, notes. Encoding of some of these elements in an international mark-up format like SKOS can be problematic, especially as this does not provide for faceted structures, although approximate SKOS equivalents are identified for most of them.