Search (89 results, page 5 of 5)

0.010327483 = product of:
  0.020654965 = sum of:
    0.020654965 = product of:
      0.04130993 = sum of:
        0.04130993 = weight(_text_:classification in 3183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04130993 = score(doc=3183,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.24880521 = fieldWeight in 3183, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3183)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.010327483 = product of:
  0.020654965 = sum of:
    0.020654965 = product of:
      0.04130993 = sum of:
        0.04130993 = weight(_text_:classification in 3849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04130993 = score(doc=3849,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.24880521 = fieldWeight in 3849, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, 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.

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.

0.010223686 = product of:
  0.020447372 = sum of:
    0.020447372 = product of:
      0.040894743 = sum of:
        0.040894743 = weight(_text_:classification in 247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040894743 = score(doc=247,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 247, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=247)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.008829388 = product of:
  0.017658776 = sum of:
    0.017658776 = product of:
      0.03531755 = sum of:
        0.03531755 = weight(_text_:22 in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03531755 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1418, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1418)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.00876316 = product of:
  0.01752632 = sum of:
    0.01752632 = product of:
      0.03505264 = sum of:
        0.03505264 = weight(_text_:classification in 3155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03505264 = score(doc=3155,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 3155, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3155)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Mit einer Übersicht der Information Coding Classification

0.00876316 = product of:
  0.01752632 = sum of:
    0.01752632 = product of:
      0.03505264 = sum of:
        0.03505264 = weight(_text_:classification in 4827) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03505264 = score(doc=4827,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 4827, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4827)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Classification and ontology: formal approaches and access to knowledge: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar, 19-20 September 2011, The Hague, The Netherlands. Eds.: A. Slavic u. E. Civallero

0.0073026326 = product of:
  0.014605265 = sum of:
    0.014605265 = product of:
      0.02921053 = sum of:
        0.02921053 = weight(_text_:classification in 4142) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02921053 = score(doc=4142,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 4142, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4142)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Literature on the systematifier is remarkably limited in knowledge organization. Dahlberg created the procedure in the seventies as a guide for the construction of classification systems and showed its applicability in systems she developed. According to her initial conception, all disciplines should be structured in the following sequence: Foundations and theories-Subjects of study-Methods-Influences-Applications-Environment. The nature of the procedure is determined in this study and the concept is situated in relation with the domain analysis methodologies. As a tool for the organization of the map of a certain domain, it is associated with a rationalist perspective and the top-down design of systems construction. It would require a reassessment of its scope in order to ensure its applicability to multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary domains. Among other conclusions, it is highlighted that the greatest potential of the systematifier is given by the fact that-as a methodological device-it can act as: i)an analyzer of a subject area; ii)an organizer of its main terms; and, iii)an identifier of links, bridges and intersection points with other knowledge areas.

0.0073026326 = product of:
  0.014605265 = sum of:
    0.014605265 = product of:
      0.02921053 = sum of:
        0.02921053 = weight(_text_:classification in 4154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02921053 = score(doc=4154,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 4154, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4154)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Inhalt: Richard P. Smiraglia: A Brief Introduction to Facets in Knowledge Organization / Kathryn La Barre: Interrogating Facet Theory: Decolonizing Knowledge Organization / Joseph T. Tennis: Never Facets Alone: The Evolving Thought and Persistent Problems in Ranganathan's Theories of Classification / M. P. Satija and Dong-Guen Oh: The DDC and the Knowledge Categories: Dewey did Faceting without Knowing It / Claudio Gnoli: Classifying Phenomena Part 3: Facets / Rick Szostak: Facet Analysis Without Facet Indicators / Elizabeth Milonas: An Examination of Facets within Search Engine Result Pages / Richard P. Smiraglia: Facets for Clustering and Disambiguation: The Domain Discourse of Facets in Knowledge Organization

0.0058421064 = product of:
  0.011684213 = sum of:
    0.011684213 = product of:
      0.023368426 = sum of:
        0.023368426 = weight(_text_:classification in 571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023368426 = score(doc=571,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.14074548 = fieldWeight in 571, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=571)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.