Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.014199706 = product of:
  0.028399412 = sum of:
    0.028399412 = product of:
      0.056798823 = sum of:
        0.056798823 = weight(_text_:22 in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056798823 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1835056 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052402776 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5083, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5083)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

27. 5.2007 22:19:35

0.008768408 = product of:
  0.017536815 = sum of:
    0.017536815 = product of:
      0.03507363 = sum of:
        0.03507363 = weight(_text_:j in 831) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03507363 = score(doc=831,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16650963 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052402776 = queryNorm
            0.21064025 = fieldWeight in 831, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=831)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.007307006 = product of:
  0.014614012 = sum of:
    0.014614012 = product of:
      0.029228024 = sum of:
        0.029228024 = weight(_text_:j in 1856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029228024 = score(doc=1856,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16650963 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052402776 = queryNorm
            0.17553353 = fieldWeight in 1856, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1774964 = idf(docFreq=5010, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1856)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.0037602186 = product of:
  0.0075204372 = sum of:
    0.0075204372 = product of:
      0.030081749 = sum of:
        0.030081749 = weight(_text_:authors in 3262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030081749 = score(doc=3262,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2388945 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052402776 = queryNorm
            0.12592064 = fieldWeight in 3262, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3262)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: KO 36(2009) no.1, S.62-63 (K. La Barre): "This special issue of Axiomathes presents an ambitious dual agenda. It attempts to highlight aspects of facet analysis (as used in LIS) that are shared by cognate approaches in philosophy, psychology, linguistics and computer science. Secondarily, the issue aims to attract others to the study and use of facet analysis. The authors represent a blend of lifetime involvement with facet analysis, such as Vickery, Broughton, Beghtol, and Dahlberg; those with well developed research agendas such as Tudhope, and Priss; and relative newcomers such as Gnoli, Cheti and Paradisi, and Slavic. Omissions are inescapable, but a more balanced issue would have resulted from inclusion of at least one researcher from the Indian school of facet theory. Another valuable addition might have been a reaction to the issue by one of the chief critics of facet analysis. Potentially useful, but absent, is a comprehensive bibliography of resources for those wishing to engage in further study, that now lie scattered throughout the issue. Several of the papers assume relative familiarity with facet analytical concepts and definitions, some of which are contested even within LIS. Gnoli's introduction (p. 127-130) traces the trajectory, extensions and new developments of this analytico- synthetic approach to subject access, while providing a laundry list of cognate approaches that are similar to facet analysis. This brief essay and the article by Priss (p. 243-255) directly addresses this first part of Gnoli's agenda. Priss provides detailed discussion of facet-like structures in computer science (p. 245- 246), and outlines the similarity between Formal Concept Analysis and facets. This comparison is equally fruitful for researchers in computer science and library and information science. By bridging into a discussion of visualization challenges for facet display, further research is also invited. Many of the remaining papers comprehensively detail the intellectual heritage of facet analysis (Beghtol; Broughton, p. 195-198; Dahlberg; Tudhope and Binding, p. 213-215; Vickery). Beghtol's (p. 131-144) examination of the origins of facet theory through the lens of the textbooks written by Ranganathan's mentor W.C.B. Sayers (1881-1960), Manual of Classification (1926, 1944, 1955) and a textbook written by Mills A Modern Outline of Classification (1964), serves to reveal the deep intellectual heritage of the changes in classification theory over time, as well as Ranganathan's own influence on and debt to Sayers.