Search (62 results, page 1 of 4)

0.024701362 = product of:
  0.086454764 = sum of:
    0.022050211 = weight(_text_:subject in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022050211 = score(doc=1202,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.20533209 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
    0.024724463 = weight(_text_:classification in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024724463 = score(doc=1202,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.25856596 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
    0.024724463 = weight(_text_:classification in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024724463 = score(doc=1202,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.25856596 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
    0.014955629 = product of:
      0.029911257 = sum of:
        0.029911257 = weight(_text_:texts in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029911257 = score(doc=1202,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460659 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.18171361 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)

Abstract

The concept of c-space is proposed as a visualization schema relating containers of content to cataloging surrogates and classification structures. Possible applications of keyword vector clusters within c-space could include improved retrieval rates through the use of captioning within visual hierarchies, tracings of semantic bleeding among subclasses, and access to buried knowledge within subject-neutral publication containers. The Scholastica Project is described as one example, following a tradition of research dating back to the 1980's. Preliminary focus group assessment indicates that this type of classification rendering may offer digital library searchers enriched entry strategies and an expanded range of re-entry vocabularies. Those of us who work in traditional libraries typically assume that our systems of classification: Library of Congress Classification (LCC) and Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), are descriptive rather than prescriptive. In other words, LCC classes and subclasses approximate natural groupings of texts that reflect an underlying order of knowledge, rather than arbitrary categories prescribed by librarians to facilitate efficient shelving. Philosophical support for this assumption has traditionally been found in a number of places, from the archetypal tree of knowledge, to Aristotelian categories, to the concept of discursive formations proposed by Michel Foucault. Gary P. Radford has elegantly described an encounter with Foucault's discursive formations in the traditional library setting: "Just by looking at the titles on the spines, you can see how the books cluster together...You can identify those books that seem to form the heart of the discursive formation and those books that reside on the margins. Moving along the shelves, you see those books that tend to bleed over into other classifications and that straddle multiple discursive formations. You can physically and sensually experience...those points that feel like state borders or national boundaries, those points where one subject ends and another begins, or those magical places where one subject has morphed into another..."
But what happens to this awareness in a digital library? Can discursive formations be represented in cyberspace, perhaps through diagrams in a visualization interface? And would such a schema be helpful to a digital library user? To approach this question, it is worth taking a moment to reconsider what Radford is looking at. First, he looks at titles to see how the books cluster. To illustrate, I scanned one hundred books on the shelves of a college library under subclass HT 101-395, defined by the LCC subclass caption as Urban groups. The City. Urban sociology. Of the first 100 titles in this sequence, fifty included the word "urban" or variants (e.g. "urbanization"). Another thirty-five used the word "city" or variants. These keywords appear to mark their titles as the heart of this discursive formation. The scattering of titles not using "urban" or "city" used related terms such as "town," "community," or in one case "skyscrapers." So we immediately see some empirical correlation between keywords and classification. But we also see a problem with the commonly used search technique of title-keyword. A student interested in urban studies will want to know about this entire subclass, and may wish to browse every title available therein. A title-keyword search on "urban" will retrieve only half of the titles, while a search on "city" will retrieve just over a third. There will be no overlap, since no titles in this sample contain both words. The only place where both words appear in a common string is in the LCC subclass caption, but captions are not typically indexed in library Online Public Access Catalogs (OPACs). In a traditional library, this problem is mitigated when the student goes to the shelf looking for any one of the books and suddenly discovers a much wider selection than the keyword search had led him to expect. But in a digital library, the issue of non-retrieval can be more problematic, as studies have indicated. Micco and Popp reported that, in a study funded partly by the U.S. Department of Education, 65 of 73 unskilled users searching for material on U.S./Soviet foreign relations found some material but never realized they had missed a large percentage of what was in the database.

0.023588596 = product of:
  0.110080115 = sum of:
    0.033948522 = weight(_text_:subject in 4088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033948522 = score(doc=4088,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.31612942 = fieldWeight in 4088, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4088)
    0.0380658 = weight(_text_:classification in 4088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0380658 = score(doc=4088,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.39808834 = fieldWeight in 4088, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4088)
    0.0380658 = weight(_text_:classification in 4088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0380658 = score(doc=4088,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.39808834 = fieldWeight in 4088, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4088)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

Authors describe the background and the work involved in setting up Engine-e, a Web index that uses automatic classification as a mean for the selection of resources in Engineering. Considerations in offering a robot-generated Web index as a successor to a manually indexed quality-controlled subject gateway are also discussed

0.023431743 = product of:
  0.10934813 = sum of:
    0.028549349 = weight(_text_:classification in 552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028549349 = score(doc=552,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.29856625 = fieldWeight in 552, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=552)
    0.05224943 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05224943 = score(doc=552,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.44699866 = fieldWeight in 552, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=552)
    0.028549349 = weight(_text_:classification in 552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028549349 = score(doc=552,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.29856625 = fieldWeight in 552, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=552)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

The term 'the bibliographic paradigm' is used in the literature of library and information science, but is a very seldom term and is almost always negatively described. This paper reconsiders this concept. Method. The method is mainly 'analytical'. Empirical data concerning the current state of the UDC-classification system are also presented in order to illuminate the connection between theory and practice. Analysis. The bibliographic paradigm is understood as a perspective in library and information science focusing on documents and information resources, their description, organization, mediation and use. This perspective is examined as one among other metatheories of library and information science and its philosophical assumptions and implications are outlined. Results. The neglect and misunderstanding of 'the bibliographic paradigm' as well as the quality of the new UDC-classification indicate that both the metatheoretical discourses on library and information science and its concrete practice seem to be in a state of crisis.

0.022701254 = product of:
  0.10593919 = sum of:
    0.036007844 = weight(_text_:subject in 1168) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036007844 = score(doc=1168,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.33530587 = fieldWeight in 1168, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1168)
    0.03496567 = weight(_text_:classification in 1168) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03496567 = score(doc=1168,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.3656675 = fieldWeight in 1168, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1168)
    0.03496567 = weight(_text_:classification in 1168) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03496567 = score(doc=1168,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.3656675 = fieldWeight in 1168, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1168)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

The Web puzzle of online information resources often hinders end-users from effective and efficient access to these resources. Clustering resources into appropriate subject-based groupings may help alleviate these difficulties, but will it work with heterogeneous material? The University of Michigan and the University of California Irvine joined forces to test automatically enhancing metadata records using the Topic Modeling algorithm on the varied OAIster corpus. We created labels for the resulting clusters of metadata records, matched the clusters to an in-house classification system, and developed a prototype that would showcase methods for search and retrieval using the enhanced records. Results indicated that while the algorithm was somewhat time-intensive to run and using a local classification scheme had its drawbacks, precise clustering of records was achieved and the prototype interface proved that faceted classification could be powerful in helping end-users find resources.

0.017501576 = product of:
  0.08167402 = sum of:
    0.03364573 = weight(_text_:classification in 236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03364573 = score(doc=236,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.35186368 = fieldWeight in 236, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=236)
    0.03364573 = weight(_text_:classification in 236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03364573 = score(doc=236,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.35186368 = fieldWeight in 236, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=236)
    0.014382556 = product of:
      0.028765112 = sum of:
        0.028765112 = weight(_text_:22 in 236) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028765112 = score(doc=236,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 236, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=236)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

The Decimal Classification Editorial Policy Committee (EPC) held its Meeting 117 at the Library Dec. 3-5, 2001, with chair Andrea Stamm (Northwestern University) presiding. Through its actions at this meeting, significant progress was made toward publication of DDC unabridged Edition 22 in mid-2003 and Abridged Edition 14 in early 2004. For Edition 22, the committee approved the revisions to two major segments of the classification: Table 2 through 55 Iran (the first half of the geographic area table) and 900 History and geography. EPC approved updates to several parts of the classification it had already considered: 004-006 Data processing, Computer science; 340 Law; 370 Education; 510 Mathematics; 610 Medicine; Table 3 issues concerning treatment of scientific and technical themes, with folklore, arts, and printing ramifications at 398.2 - 398.3, 704.94, and 758; Table 5 and Table 6 Ethnic Groups and Languages (portions concerning American native peoples and languages); and tourism issues at 647.9 and 790. Reports on the results of testing the approved 200 Religion and 305-306 Social groups schedules were received, as was a progress report on revision work for the manual being done by Ross Trotter (British Library, retired). Revisions for Abridged Edition 14 that received committee approval included 010 Bibliography; 070 Journalism; 150 Psychology; 370 Education; 380 Commerce, communications, and transportation; 621 Applied physics; 624 Civil engineering; and 629.8 Automatic control engineering. At the meeting the committee received print versions of _DC&_ numbers 4 and 5. Primarily for the use of Dewey translators, these cumulations list changes, substantive and cosmetic, to DDC Edition 21 and Abridged Edition 13 for the period October 1999 - December 2001. EPC will hold its Meeting 118 at the Library May 15-17, 2002.

0.01608469 = product of:
  0.07506188 = sum of:
    0.023310447 = weight(_text_:classification in 2804) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023310447 = score(doc=2804,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24377833 = fieldWeight in 2804, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2804)
    0.028440988 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2804) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028440988 = score(doc=2804,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24331525 = fieldWeight in 2804, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2804)
    0.023310447 = weight(_text_:classification in 2804) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023310447 = score(doc=2804,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24377833 = fieldWeight in 2804, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2804)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

The ACL Anthology is a digital archive of conference and journal papers in natural language processing and computational linguistics. Its primary purpose is to serve as a reference repository of research results, but we believe that it can also be an object of study and a platform for research in its own right. We describe an enriched and standardized reference corpus derived from the ACL Anthology that can be used for research in scholarly document processing. This corpus, which we call the ACL Anthology Reference Corpus (ACL ARC), brings together the recent activities of a number of research groups around the world. Our goal is to make the corpus widely available, and to encourage other researchers to use it as a standard testbed for experiments in both bibliographic and bibliometric research.

Content

Vgl. auch: Automatic Term Recognition (ATR) is a research task that deals with the identification of domain-specific terms. Terms, in simple words, are textual realization of significant concepts in an expertise domain. Additionally, domain-specific terms may be classified into a number of categories, in which each category represents a significant concept. A term classification task is often defined on top of an ATR procedure to perform such categorization. For instance, in the biomedical domain, terms can be classified as drugs, proteins, and genes. This is a reference dataset for terminology extraction and classification research in computational linguistics. It is a set of manually annotated terms in English language that are extracted from the ACL Anthology Reference Corpus (ACL ARC). The ACL ARC is a canonicalised and frozen subset of scientific publications in the domain of Human Language Technologies (HLT). It consists of 10,921 articles from 1965 to 2006. The dataset, called ACL RD-TEC, is comprised of more than 69,000 candidate terms that are manually annotated as valid and invalid terms. Furthermore, valid terms are classified as technology and non-technology terms. Technology terms refer to a method, process, or in general a technological concept in the domain of HLT, e.g. machine translation, word sense disambiguation, and language modelling. On the other hand, non-technology terms refer to important concepts other than technological; examples of such terms in the domain of HLT are multilingual lexicon, corpora, word sense, and language model. The dataset is created to serve as a gold standard for the comparison of the algorithms of term recognition and classification. [http://catalog.elra.info/product_info.php?products_id=1236].

0.014758593 = product of:
  0.068873435 = sum of:
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 2280) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=2280,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 2280, 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=2280)
    0.02849856 = product of:
      0.05699712 = sum of:
        0.05699712 = weight(_text_:schemes in 2280) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05699712 = score(doc=2280,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.35474116 = fieldWeight in 2280, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2280)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 2280) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=2280,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 2280, 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=2280)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

A faceted ontology consists of a set of facets, where each facet consists of a predefined set of terms structured by a subsumption relation. We propose two extensions of faceted ontologies, which allow inferring conjunctions of terms that are valid in the underlying domain. We give a model-theoretic interpretation to these extended faceted ontologies and we provide mechanisms for inferring the valid conjunctions of terms. This inference service can be exploited for preventing errors during the indexing process and for deriving navigation trees that are suitable for browsing. The proposed scheme has several advantages by comparison to the hierarchical classification schemes that are currently used, namely: conceptual clarity: it is easier to understand, compactness: it takes less space, and scalability: the update operations can be formulated easier and be performed more efficiently.

0.014107771 = product of:
  0.065836266 = sum of:
    0.02546139 = weight(_text_:subject in 2259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02546139 = score(doc=2259,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 2259, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2259)
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 2259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=2259,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 2259, 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=2259)
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 2259) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=2259,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 2259, 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=2259)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

An ontology is "an explicit conceptualization of a domain of discourse, and thus provides a shared and common understanding of the domain." We have been producing ontologies for millennia to understand and explain our rationale and environment. From Plato's philosophical framework to modern day classification systems, ontologies are, in most cases, the product of extensive analysis and categorization. Only recently has the process of building ontologies become a research topic of interest. Today, ontologies are built very much ad-hoc. A terminology is first developed providing a controlled vocabulary for the subject area or domain of interest, then it is organized into a taxonomy where key concepts are identified, and finally these concepts are defined and related to create an ontology. The intent of this paper is to show that domain analysis methods can be used for building ontologies. Domain analysis aims at generic models that represent groups of similar systems within an application domain. In this sense, it deals with categorization of common objects and operations, with clear, unambiguous definitions of them and with defining their relationships.

0.011756477 = product of:
  0.054863557 = sum of:
    0.021217827 = weight(_text_:subject in 2529) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021217827 = score(doc=2529,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 2529, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2529)
    0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 2529) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016822865 = score(doc=2529,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 2529, 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=2529)
    0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 2529) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016822865 = score(doc=2529,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 2529, 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=2529)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

It was from 1895 onwards, the year in which the First International Bibliography Conference was held and the Decimal System began to be primarily implemented on a European scale, that it first began to be disseminated in Spain . The introduction of the UDC (Universal Decimal Classification) scheme was initially subject to numerous difficulties owing to isolated incidents with librarians, but it subsequently received the support of the Spanish Administration. It was in 1939 that the UDC was officially implemented in all Spanish libraries although what was introduced in the decree was the 1934 German version. Nevertheless, in its practical implementation in libraries, the latest version of the UDC tables was introduced. Finally, from 1989 onwards, the compulsoriness of using the UDC to classify collections and catalogues was repealed, although its implementation in libraries, catalogues and bibliographies is almost complete. The UDC is taught within the framework of regulated Library and Information Science courses, both from a theoretical and from a practical point of view. Research in Spain on the UDC is already quite important; translations, adaptations and versions of the tables have been undertaken and there are also analytical works on different aspects of the UDC system.

0.01153568 = product of:
  0.08074976 = sum of:
    0.04037488 = weight(_text_:classification in 570) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04037488 = score(doc=570,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.42223644 = fieldWeight in 570, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=570)
    0.04037488 = weight(_text_:classification in 570) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04037488 = score(doc=570,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.42223644 = fieldWeight in 570, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=570)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Source

Proceedings 17th SIG/CR Classification Research Workshop, November 4, 2006, Austin, Texas. Eds.: Jonathan Furner and Joseph T. Tennis

0.010220651 = product of:
  0.047696367 = sum of:
    0.012730695 = weight(_text_:subject in 1212) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012730695 = score(doc=1212,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.11854853 = fieldWeight in 1212, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1212)
    0.017482836 = weight(_text_:classification in 1212) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017482836 = score(doc=1212,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.18283375 = fieldWeight in 1212, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1212)
    0.017482836 = weight(_text_:classification in 1212) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017482836 = score(doc=1212,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.18283375 = fieldWeight in 1212, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1212)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

Dewey and the Library of Congress The late 19th and early 20th centuries were a hotbed of intellectual activity for library categorizers. First Melvil Dewey developed his decimal system. Then the Library of Congress (LC) adapted Charles Ammi Cutter's alphanumeric system for its collection. Dewey, the only librarian popularly known for librarianship, had a healthy ego and placed information science at the very beginning of his classifications. The librarians at LC followed Cutter and relegated their profession to the back of their own bus, in the Zs. These two systems became the primary classifications accepted by the library community. I was once chastised at an SLA meeting for daring to design my own systems, and library schools that mainly train people for public and academic institutions reinforce this idea. In addition, LC provides cataloging and call numbers for almost every book commercially published in the United States and quite a few international publications. This is a seductive strategy for libraries that have little money and little time. These two systems contain drawbacks for special libraries. Let's see how they treat Snoopy. I'll be using Dewey for this exercise. Dewey has an index, which facilitates classification analysis. In addition, LC is a larger system, and we have space considerations here. However, other than length, call number building, and self-esteem, there is not much difference in the two theories. Figure 2 shows selected Dewey classifications for Snoopy, beagles, dogs, and animals (Melvil Dewey. Dewey Decimal Classification and Relative Index. 21st ed. Edited by Joan S. Mitchell, et al. Albany, NY: OCLC Online Computer Library Center, 1996). The call numbers are removed to emphasize hierarchy rather than notation. There are 234 categories. Both Dewey and LC are designed to describe the whole of human knowledge. For historic reasons, they do this from the perspective of an educated white male in 19th century America. This perspective presents some problems if your specialty is Snoopy. In "Generalities," newspaper cartoon strips are filed away under "Miscellaneous information, advice, amusement." However, a collection of Charles Schulz cartoons would be shelved way over in "The Arts [right arrow] Drawing and decorative arts," thereby separating two almost equal subjects by a very wide distance. The generic vocabulary required to describe all of human knowledge is also problematic for specialists. In "The Arts [right arrow] Standard subdivisions of fine and decorative arts and iconography," there are five synonyms for miscellaneous before we get to a real subject. Then it's another six facets to get to the dogs.

0.010048032 = product of:
  0.07033622 = sum of:
    0.03675035 = weight(_text_:subject in 3654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03675035 = score(doc=3654,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.34222013 = fieldWeight in 3654, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3654)
    0.033585876 = product of:
      0.06717175 = sum of:
        0.06717175 = weight(_text_:schemes in 3654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06717175 = score(doc=3654,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.41806644 = fieldWeight in 3654, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3654)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

The JISC-funded HILT project is looking to make contact with staff in information services or projects interested in helping it test and refine its developing terminology services. The project is currently working to create pilot web services that will deliver machine-readable terminology and cross-terminology mappings data likely to be useful to information services wishing to extend or enhance the efficacy of their subject search or browse services. Based on SRW/U, SOAP, and SKOS, the HILT facilities, when fully operational, will permit such services to improve their own subject search and browse mechanisms by using HILT data in a fashion transparent to their users. On request, HILT will serve up machine-processable data on individual subject schemes (broader terms, narrower terms, hierarchy information, preferred and non-preferred terms, and so on) and interoperability data (usually intellectual or automated mappings between schemes, but the architecture allows for the use of other methods) - data that can be used to enhance user services. The project is also developing an associated toolkit that will help service technical staff to embed HILT-related functionality into their services. The primary aim is to serve JISC funded information services or services at JISC institutions, but information services outside the JISC domain may also find the proposed services useful and wish to participate in the test and refine process.

0.009839063 = product of:
  0.045915626 = sum of:
    0.013458292 = weight(_text_:classification in 1180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013458292 = score(doc=1180,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.14074548 = fieldWeight in 1180, 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=1180)
    0.01899904 = product of:
      0.03799808 = sum of:
        0.03799808 = weight(_text_:schemes in 1180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03799808 = score(doc=1180,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.2364941 = fieldWeight in 1180, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1180)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.013458292 = weight(_text_:classification in 1180) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013458292 = score(doc=1180,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.14074548 = fieldWeight in 1180, 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=1180)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

The Greek historian Herodotus has the Athenian sage Solon estimate the lifetime of a human being at c. 26,250 days (Herodotus, The Histories, 1.32). If we could read a book on each of those days, it would take almost forty lifetimes to work through every volume in a single million book library. The continuous tradition of written European literature that began with the Iliad and Odyssey in the eighth century BCE is itself little more than a million days old. While libraries that contain more than one million items are not unusual, print libraries never possessed a million books of use to any one reader. The great libraries that took shape in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were meta-structures, whose catalogues and finding aids allowed readers to create their own customized collections, building on the fixed classification schemes and disciplinary structures that took shape in the nineteenth century. The digital libraries of the early twenty-first century can be searched and their contents transmitted around the world. They can contain time-based media, images, quantitative data, and a far richer array of content than print, with visualization technologies blurring the boundaries between library and museum. But our digital libraries remain filled with digital incunabula - digital objects whose form remains firmly rooted in traditions of print, with HTML and PDF largely mimicking the limitations of their print predecessors. Vast collections based on image books - raw digital pictures of books with searchable but uncorrected text from OCR - could arguably retard our long-term progress, reinforcing the hegemony of structures that evolved to minimize the challenges of a world where paper was the only medium of distribution and where humans alone could read. Already the books in a digital library are beginning to read one another and to confer among themselves before creating a new synthetic document for review by their human readers.

0.009613066 = product of:
  0.06729146 = sum of:
    0.03364573 = weight(_text_:classification in 548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03364573 = score(doc=548,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.35186368 = fieldWeight in 548, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=548)
    0.03364573 = weight(_text_:classification in 548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03364573 = score(doc=548,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.35186368 = fieldWeight in 548, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=548)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

UDC aims to be a consistent and complete classification system, that enables practitioners to classify documents swiftly and smoothly. The eventual goal of UDC is to enable the public at large to retrieve documents from large collections of documents that are classified with UDC. The large size of the UDC Master Reference File, MRF with over 66.000 records, makes it difficult to obtain an overview and to understand its structure. Moreover, finding the right classification in MRF turns out to be difficult in practice. Last but not least, retrieval of documents requires insight and understanding of the coding system. Visualization is an effective means to support the development of UDC as well as its use by practitioners. Moreover, visualization offers possibilities to use the classification without use of the coding system as such. MagnaView has developed an application which demonstrates the use of interactive visualization to face these challenges. In our presentation, we discuss these challenges, and we give a demonstration of the way the application helps face these. Examples of visualizations can be found below.

0.008229533 = product of:
  0.038404487 = sum of:
    0.014852478 = weight(_text_:subject in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014852478 = score(doc=1188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.13830662 = fieldWeight in 1188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1188)
    0.011776006 = weight(_text_:classification in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011776006 = score(doc=1188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.12315229 = fieldWeight in 1188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1188)
    0.011776006 = weight(_text_:classification in 1188) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011776006 = score(doc=1188,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.12315229 = fieldWeight in 1188, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1188)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

Because, to paraphrase a pop music lyric from a certain rock and roll band of yesterday, "the Web is old, the Web is new, the Web is all, the Web is you", it seems like we might have to face up to some of these stark realities. With the introduction of new social software applications such as blogs, wikis, newsfeeds, social networks, and bookmarking tools (the subject of this paper), the claim that Shelley Powers makes in a Burningbird blog entry seems apposite: "This is the user's web now, which means it's my web and I can make the rules." Reinvention is revolution - it brings us always back to beginnings. We are here going to remind you of hyperlinks in all their glory, sell you on the idea of bookmarking hyperlinks, point you at other folks who are doing the same, and tell you why this is a good thing. Just as long as those hyperlinks (or let's call them plain old links) are managed, tagged, commented upon, and published onto the Web, they represent a user's own personal library placed on public record, which - when aggregated with other personal libraries - allows for rich, social networking opportunities. Why spill any ink (digital or not) in rewriting what someone else has already written about instead of just pointing at the original story and adding the merest of titles, descriptions and tags for future reference? More importantly, why not make these personal 'link playlists' available to oneself and to others from whatever browser or computer one happens to be using at the time? This paper reviews some current initiatives, as of early 2005, in providing public link management applications on the Web - utilities that are often referred to under the general moniker of 'social bookmarking tools'. There are a couple of things going on here: 1) server-side software aimed specifically at managing links with, crucially, a strong, social networking flavour, and 2) an unabashedly open and unstructured approach to tagging, or user classification, of those links.

0.008156957 = product of:
  0.057098698 = sum of:
    0.028549349 = weight(_text_:classification in 540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028549349 = score(doc=540,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.29856625 = fieldWeight in 540, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=540)
    0.028549349 = weight(_text_:classification in 540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028549349 = score(doc=540,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.29856625 = fieldWeight in 540, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=540)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Semantic Search has become an active research of Semantic Web in recent years. The classification methodology plays a pretty critical role in the beginning of search process to disambiguate irrelevant information. However, the applications related to Folksonomy suffer from many obstacles. This study attempts to eliminate the problems resulted from Folksonomy using existing semantic technology. We also focus on how to effectively integrate heterogeneous ontologies over the Internet to acquire the integrity of domain knowledge. A faceted logic layer is abstracted in order to strengthen category framework and organize existing available ontologies according to a series of steps based on the methodology of faceted classification and ontology construction. The result showed that our approach can facilitate the integration of inconsistent or even heterogeneous ontologies. This paper also generalizes the principles of picking appropriate facets with which our facet browser completely complies so that better semantic search result can be obtained.

0.0072676735 = product of:
  0.03391581 = sum of:
    0.012730695 = weight(_text_:subject in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012730695 = score(doc=1184,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.11854853 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
    0.015083112 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015083112 = score(doc=1184,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.1290374 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
    0.0061020018 = product of:
      0.0122040035 = sum of:
        0.0122040035 = weight(_text_:22 in 1184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0122040035 = score(doc=1184,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 1184, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1184)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

This article offers some perspectives on GPLP in light of what is known about library print book collections in general, and those of the Google 5 in particular, from information in OCLC's WorldCat bibliographic database and holdings file. Questions addressed include: * Coverage: What proportion of the system-wide print book collection will GPLP potentially cover? What is the degree of holdings overlap across the print book collections of the five participating libraries? * Language: What is the distribution of languages associated with the print books held by the GPLP libraries? Which languages are predominant? * Copyright: What proportion of the GPLP libraries' print book holdings are out of copyright? * Works: How many distinct works are represented in the holdings of the GPLP libraries? How does a focus on works impact coverage and holdings overlap? * Convergence: What are the effects on coverage of using a different set of five libraries? What are the effects of adding the holdings of additional libraries to those of the GPLP libraries, and how do these effects vary by library type? These questions certainly do not exhaust the analytical possibilities presented by GPLP. More in-depth analysis might look at Google 5 coverage in particular subject areas; it also would be interesting to see how many books covered by the GPLP have already been digitized in other contexts. However, these questions are left to future studies. The purpose here is to explore a few basic questions raised by GPLP, and in doing so, provide an empirical context for the debate that is sure to continue for some time to come. A secondary objective is to lay some groundwork for a general set of questions that could be used to explore the implications of any mass digitization initiative. A suggested list of questions is provided in the conclusion of the article.

Date

26.12.2011 14:08:22

0.0067974646 = product of:
  0.04758225 = sum of:
    0.023791125 = weight(_text_:classification in 4835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023791125 = score(doc=4835,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24880521 = fieldWeight in 4835, 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=4835)
    0.023791125 = weight(_text_:classification in 4835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023791125 = score(doc=4835,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24880521 = fieldWeight in 4835, 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=4835)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

In the early years of the 20th century, Julius Otto Kaiser (1868-1927), a special librarian and indexer of technical literature, developed a method of knowledge organization (KO) known as systematic indexing. Certain elements of the method-its stipulation that all indexing terms be divided into fundamental categories "concretes", "countries", and "processes", which are then to be synthesized into indexing "statements" formulated according to strict rules of citation order-have long been recognized as precursors to key principles of the theory of faceted classification. However, other, less well-known elements of the method may prove no less interesting to practitioners of KO. In particular, two aspects of systematic indexing seem to prefigure current trends in KO: (1) a perspectivist outlook that rejects universal classifications in favor of information organization systems customized to reflect local needs and (2) the incorporation of index terms extracted from source documents into a polyhierarchical taxonomical structure. Kaiser's perspectivism anticipates postmodern theories of KO, while his principled use of polyhierarchy to organize terms derived from the language of source documents provides a potentially fruitful model that can inform current discussions about harvesting natural-language terms, such as tags, and incorporating them into a flexibly structured controlled vocabulary.

Source

Proceedings 18th Workshop of the American Society for Information Science and Technology Special Interest Group in Classification Research, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Ed.: Lussky, Joan

0.006302292 = product of:
  0.044116043 = sum of:
    0.024005229 = weight(_text_:subject in 1196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024005229 = score(doc=1196,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.22353725 = fieldWeight in 1196, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1196)
    0.020110816 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020110816 = score(doc=1196,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17204987 = fieldWeight in 1196, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1196)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

This article describes the journey from the conception of and vision for a modern search-engine-based search environment to its technological realisation. In doing so, it takes up the thread of an earlier article on this subject, this time from a technical viewpoint. As well as presenting the conceptual considerations of the initial stages, this article will principally elucidate the technological aspects of this journey. The starting point for the deliberations about development of an academic search engine was the experience we gained through the generally successful project "Digital Library NRW", in which from 1998 to 2000-with Bielefeld University Library in overall charge-we designed a system model for an Internet-based library portal with an improved academic search environment at its core. At the heart of this system was a metasearch with an availability function, to which we added a user interface integrating all relevant source material for study and research. The deficiencies of this approach were felt soon after the system was launched in June 2001. There were problems with the stability and performance of the database retrieval system, with the integration of full-text documents and Internet pages, and with acceptance by users, because users are increasingly performing the searches themselves using search engines rather than going to the library for help in doing searches. Since a long list of problems are also encountered using commercial search engines for academic use (in particular the retrieval of academic information and long-term availability), the idea was born for a search engine configured specifically for academic use. We also hoped that with one single access point founded on improved search engine technology, we could access the heterogeneous academic resources of subject-based bibliographic databases, catalogues, electronic newspapers, document servers and academic web pages.

0.00576784 = product of:
  0.04037488 = sum of:
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 5899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=5899,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 5899, 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=5899)
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 5899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=5899,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 5899, 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=5899)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)