Search (43 results, page 2 of 3)

0.0011787476 = product of:
  0.008251233 = sum of:
    0.008251233 = product of:
      0.041256163 = sum of:
        0.041256163 = weight(_text_:system in 843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041256163 = score(doc=843,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.36163113 = fieldWeight in 843, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=843)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The categories/isolates are broadly conceived as common and special. The common categories are applicable to all the classes of subjects in a Classification system, whereas the specials are applicable within a domain or specified classes of a classification system. The CC has represented some unique special categories, especially in the Agriculture Subject schedule, and such a provision is not seen in any other classification system; not even in any other subject schedule of Colon Classification. These special categories are termed here as "Domain Specific Categories". The paper analyses the thematic relationships within and outside the subject schedule with potential applications in devising a scheme of metadata as demonstrated in a research study on Indian Medicinal Plants. The other potential applications of such thematic relationships are in the creation of semantic maps and in linking concepts from different domains of knowledge.

0.0011697485 = product of:
  0.008188239 = sum of:
    0.008188239 = product of:
      0.040941194 = sum of:
        0.040941194 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040941194 = score(doc=2874,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.37365708 = fieldWeight in 2874, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2874)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Purpose - The aim of this article is to estimate the impact of faceted classification and the faceted analytical method on the development of various information retrieval tools over the latter part of the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Design/methodology/approach - The article presents an examination of various subject access tools intended for retrieval of both print and digital materials to determine whether they exhibit features of faceted systems. Some attention is paid to use of the faceted approach as a means of structuring information on commercial web sites. The secondary and research literature is also surveyed for commentary on and evaluation of facet analysis as a basis for the building of vocabulary and conceptual tools. Findings - The study finds that faceted systems are now very common, with a major increase in their use over the last 15 years. Most LIS subject indexing tools (classifications, subject heading lists and thesauri) now demonstrate features of facet analysis to a greater or lesser degree. A faceted approach is frequently taken to the presentation of product information on commercial web sites, and there is an independent strand of theory and documentation related to this application. There is some significant research on semi-automatic indexing and retrieval (query expansion and query formulation) using facet analytical techniques. Originality/value - This article provides an overview of an important conceptual approach to information retrieval, and compares different understandings and applications of this methodology.

0.0010873 = product of:
  0.0076110996 = sum of:
    0.0076110996 = product of:
      0.0380555 = sum of:
        0.0380555 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 831) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0380555 = score(doc=831,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 831, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=831)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The main object of the paper is to demonstrate in detail the role of classification in information retrieval (IR) and the design of classificatory structures by the application of logical division to all forms of the content of records, subject and imaginative. The natural product of such division is a faceted classification. The latter is seen not as a particular kind of library classification but the only viable form enabling the locating and relating of information to be optimally predictable. A detailed exposition of the practical steps in facet analysis is given, drawing on the experience of the new Bliss Classification (BC2). The continued existence of the library as a highly organized information store is assumed. But, it is argued, it must acknowledge the relevance of the revolution in library classification that has taken place. It considers also how alphabetically arranged subject indexes may utilize controlled use of categorical (generically inclusive) and syntactic relations to produce similarly predictable locating and relating systems for IR.

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

0.0010462549 = product of:
  0.007323784 = sum of:
    0.007323784 = product of:
      0.03661892 = sum of:
        0.03661892 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03661892 = score(doc=2564,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 2564, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2564)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

0.0010462549 = product of:
  0.007323784 = sum of:
    0.007323784 = product of:
      0.03661892 = sum of:
        0.03661892 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4128) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03661892 = score(doc=4128,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 4128, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4128)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Konstruktion und Retrieval von Wissen: 3. Tagung der Deutschen ISKO-Sektion einschließlich der Vorträge des Workshops "Thesauri als terminologische Lexika", Weilburg, 27.-29.10.1993. Hrsg.: N. Meder u.a

8.3700387E-4 = product of:
  0.0058590267 = sum of:
    0.0058590267 = product of:
      0.029295133 = sum of:
        0.029295133 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029295133 = score(doc=3773,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 3773, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3773)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Faceted analytical theory is a widely accepted approach for constructing modern classification schemes and other controlled vocabularies. While the advantages of faceted approach are broadly accepted and understood the actual implementation is coupled with many challenges when it comes to data modelling, management and retrieval. UDC Seminar 2017 revisits faceted analytical theory as one of the most influential methodologies in the development of knowledge organization systems.

8.0203614E-4 = product of:
  0.0056142528 = sum of:
    0.0056142528 = product of:
      0.028071264 = sum of:
        0.028071264 = weight(_text_:system in 5563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028071264 = score(doc=5563,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.24605882 = fieldWeight in 5563, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5563)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Some time ago, some people said classification is dead, we don't need it any more. They probably thought that subject headings could do the job of the necessary subject analysis and shelving of books. However, all of a sudden in 1984 the attitude changed, when an OCLC study of Karen Markey started to show what could be done even with an "outdated system" such as the Dewey Decimal Classification in the computer, once it was visible on a screen to show the helpfulness of a classified library catalogue called an OPAC; classification was brought back into the minds of doubtful librarians and of all those who thought they would not need it any longer. But the problem once phrased: "We are stuck with the two old systems, LCC and DDC" would not find a solution and is still with us today. We know that our systems are outdated but we seem still to be unable to replace them with better ones. What then should one do and advise, knowing that we need something better? Perhaps a new universal ordering system which more adequately represents and mediates the world of our present day knowledge? If we were to develop it from scratch, how would we create it and implement it in such a way that it would be acceptable to the majority of the present intellectual world population?

8.0203614E-4 = product of:
  0.0056142528 = sum of:
    0.0056142528 = product of:
      0.028071264 = sum of:
        0.028071264 = weight(_text_:system in 4824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028071264 = score(doc=4824,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.24605882 = fieldWeight in 4824, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4824)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

General concepts are all those form-categorial concepts which - attached to a specific concept of a classification system or thesaurus - can help to widen, sometimes even in a syntactical sense, the understanding of a case. In some existing universal classification systems such concepts have been named "auxiliaries" or "common isolates" as in the Colon Classification (CC). However, by such auxiliaries, different kinds of such concepts are listed, e.g. concepts of space and time, concepts of races and languages and concepts of kinds of documents, next to them also concepts of kinds of general activities, properties, persons, and institutions. Such latter kinds form part of the nine aspects ruling the facets in the Information Coding Classification (ICC) through the principle of using a Systematiser for the subdivision of subject groups and fields. Based on this principle and using and extending existing systems of such concepts, e.g. which A. Diemer had presented to the German Thesaurus Committee as well as those found in the UDC, in CC and attached to the Subject Heading System of the German National Library, a faceted classification is proposed for critical assessment, necessary improvement and possible later use in classification systems and thesauri.

7.9397525E-4 = product of:
  0.0055578267 = sum of:
    0.0055578267 = product of:
      0.027789133 = sum of:
        0.027789133 = weight(_text_:system in 364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027789133 = score(doc=364,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.2435858 = fieldWeight in 364, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=364)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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.

7.323784E-4 = product of:
  0.0051266486 = sum of:
    0.0051266486 = product of:
      0.025633242 = sum of:
        0.025633242 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 827) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025633242 = score(doc=827,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 827, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=827)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

"dwibindu vargiikaraNa" is the Kannada rendering of the revised Colon Classification, 7th Edition, intended essentially for the classification of macro documents. This paper discusses the planning, preparation, and features of Colon Classification (CC) in Kannada, one of the major Indian languages as well as the Official Language of Karnataka, and uploading the CC on the web. Linguistic issues related to the Kannada rendering are discussed with possible solutions. It creates facilities in the field of Indexing Language (IL) to prepare products such as, Subject Heading List, Information Retrieval Thesaurus, and creation of subject glossaries or updating the available subject dictionaries in Kannada.

7.323784E-4 = product of:
  0.0051266486 = sum of:
    0.0051266486 = product of:
      0.025633242 = sum of:
        0.025633242 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025633242 = score(doc=5899,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 5899, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5899)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

S.R. Ranganathan is credited with the introduction of the term "facet" in the field of knowledge organization towards the middle of the twentieth century. Facets have traditionally been used to organize document collections and to express complex subjects. In the digital world, they act as filters to facilitate navigation and improve retrieval. But the popularity of the term does not mean that a definitive characterization of the concept has been established. Indeed, several conceptualizations of the facet co-exist. This article provides an overview of formal and informal definitions found in the literature of knowledge organization, followed by a discussion of four common conceptualizations of the facet: process vs product, nature vs function, object vs subject and organization vs navigation.

6.8055023E-4 = product of:
  0.0047638514 = sum of:
    0.0047638514 = product of:
      0.023819257 = sum of:
        0.023819257 = weight(_text_:system in 2792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023819257 = score(doc=2792,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 2792, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2792)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Colon Classification (CC), based on dynamic theory of classification saw seven editions from 1928 to 1987. Libraries practising it continued with extensions and additions carried out to meet their needs since it was not revised for long after the 7th edition. Revision requires adding terms in different disciplines, organising them in relation to each other and assigning notation for shelf classification. Use of ICT would help in reviving CC and is essential for regular revision of a classification scheme. The paper explores the possibility for creation of an expert system through the design of Web based Colon Classification. The author explores the possibility by designing a prototype for online revision of Colon Classification in the paper.

6.416289E-4 = product of:
  0.0044914023 = sum of:
    0.0044914023 = product of:
      0.022457011 = sum of:
        0.022457011 = weight(_text_:system in 571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022457011 = score(doc=571,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.19684705 = fieldWeight in 571, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=571)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

A native of Germany and a former teacher of languages and music, Julius Otto Kaiser (1868-1927) came to the Philadelphia Commercial Museum to be its librarian in 1896. Faced with the problem of making "information" accessible, he developed a method of indexing he called systematic indexing. The first draft of his scheme, published in 1896-97, was an important landmark in the history of subject analysis. R. K. Olding credits Kaiser with making the greatest single advance in indexing theory since Charles A. Cutter and John Metcalfe eulogizes him by observing that "in sheer capacity for really scientific and logical thinking, Kaiser's was probably the best mind that has ever applied itself to subject indexing." Kaiser was an admirer of "system." By systematic indexing he meant indicating information not with natural language expressions as, for instance, Cutter had advocated, but with artificial expressions constructed according to formulas. Kaiser grudged natural language its approximateness, its vagaries, and its ambiguities. The formulas he introduced were to provide a "machinery for regularising or standardising language" (paragraph 67). Kaiser recognized three categories or "facets" of index terms: (1) terms of concretes, representing things, real or imaginary (e.g., money, machines); (2) terms of processes, representing either conditions attaching to things or their actions (e.g., trade, manufacture); and (3) terms of localities, representing, for the most part, countries (e.g., France, South Africa). Expressions in Kaiser's index language were called statements. Statements consisted of sequences of terms, the syntax of which was prescribed by formula. These formulas specified sequences of terms by reference to category types. Only three citation orders were permitted: a term in the concrete category followed by one in the process category (e.g., Wool-Scouring); (2) a country term followed by a process term (e.g., Brazil - Education); and (3) a concrete term followed by a country term, followed by a process term (e.g., Nitrate-Chile-Trade). Kaiser's system was a precursor of two of the most significant developments in twentieth-century approaches to subject access-the special purpose use of language for indexing, thus the concept of index language, which was to emerge as a generative idea at the time of the second Cranfield experiment (1966) and the use of facets to categorize subject indicators, which was to become the characterizing feature of analytico-synthetic indexing methods such as the Colon classification. In addition to its visionary quality, Kaiser's work is notable for its meticulousness and honesty, as can be seen, for instance, in his observations about the difficulties in facet definition.

6.2775286E-4 = product of:
  0.00439427 = sum of:
    0.00439427 = product of:
      0.02197135 = sum of:
        0.02197135 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02197135 = score(doc=1857,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 1857, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1857)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Facet analysis is an established methodology for building classifications and subject indexing systems, but has been less rigorously applied to thesauri. The process of creating a compatible thesaurus from the schedules of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification 2nd edition highlights the ways in which the conceptual relationships in a subject field are handled in the two types of retrieval languages. An underlying uniformity of theory is established, and the way in which software can manage the relationships is discussed. The manner of displaying verbal expressions of concepts (vocabulary control) is also considered, but is found to be less well controlled in the classification than in the thesaurus. Nevertheless, there is good reason to think that facet analysis provides a sound basis for structuring a variety of knowledge organization tools.

6.2775286E-4 = product of:
  0.00439427 = sum of:
    0.00439427 = product of:
      0.02197135 = sum of:
        0.02197135 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02197135 = score(doc=3532,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 3532, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3532)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

5.6712516E-4 = product of:
  0.003969876 = sum of:
    0.003969876 = product of:
      0.01984938 = sum of:
        0.01984938 = weight(_text_:system in 1854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01984938 = score(doc=1854,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 1854, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1854)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

5.6712516E-4 = product of:
  0.003969876 = sum of:
    0.003969876 = product of:
      0.01984938 = sum of:
        0.01984938 = weight(_text_:system in 4065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01984938 = score(doc=4065,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 4065, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4065)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Recent revision of UDC classes has aimed at implementing a more faceted approach. Many compound classes have been removed from the main tables, and more radical revisions of classes (particularly those for Medicine and Religion) have introduced a rigorous analysis, a clearer sense of citation order, and building of compound classes according to a more logical system syntax. The faceted approach provides a means of formalizing the relationships in the classification and making them explicit for machine recognition. In the Bliss Bibliographic Classification (BC2) (which has been a source for both UDC classes mentioned above), terminologies are encoded for automatic generation of hierarchical and associative relationships. Nevertheless, difficulties are encountered in vocabulary control, and a similar phenomenon is observed in UDC. Current work has revealed differences in the vocabulary of humanities and science, notably the way in which terms in the humanities should be handled when these are semantically complex. Achieving a balance between rigour in the structure of the classification and the complexity of natural language expression remains partially unresolved at present, but provides a fertile field for further research.

5.6712516E-4 = product of:
  0.003969876 = sum of:
    0.003969876 = product of:
      0.01984938 = sum of:
        0.01984938 = weight(_text_:system in 4825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01984938 = score(doc=4825,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 4825, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4825)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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.

5.6712516E-4 = product of:
  0.003969876 = sum of:
    0.003969876 = product of:
      0.01984938 = sum of:
        0.01984938 = weight(_text_:system in 3842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01984938 = score(doc=3842,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 3842, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3842)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Shiyali Ramamrita Ranganathan (1892-1972) has been called the father of the Indian library movement. He developed the revolutionary Colon Classification (CC) from 1924 to 1928, which was published in seven editions from 1933 to 1987. In this article, the evolution of CC through its seven editions is discussed. The unique features of CC are described, including the work in idea, verbal, and notational planes. Tools for designing and evaluating a system are enshrined in his fifty-five canons, twenty-two principles, thirteen postulates, and ten devices (Indian Statistical Institute 2012, 34-38). Semantic and syntactic relations are enshrined in his order of main classes, Principles of Helpful Sequence in arrays, the PMEST facet formula fitted with rounds and levels of facets, and other principles, such as the famous wall-picture principle for citation order of facets, and numerous devices for improvising class numbers for non-existent isolates and potential subjects. Briefly explained are facet and phase analyses and number building with its notational base of seventy-four characters and symbols. The entry concludes with a discussion of the extent of application of CC in libraries, its contribution to the science of classification, and a view of its future.

5.6712516E-4 = product of:
  0.003969876 = sum of:
    0.003969876 = product of:
      0.01984938 = sum of:
        0.01984938 = weight(_text_:system in 3866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01984938 = score(doc=3866,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 3866, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3866)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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.