Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

Duncan, E.B.: Structuring knowledge bases for designers of learning materials (1989) 0.01
```
0.013667612 = product of:
  0.027335225 = sum of:
    0.027335225 = product of:
      0.05467045 = sum of:
        0.05467045 = weight(_text_:b in 2478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05467045 = score(doc=2478,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.33900195 = fieldWeight in 2478, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2478)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

Three pre-web articles about using hypertext for knowledge representation. Duncan discusses how to use graphical, hypertext displays (she used Xerox PARC's NoteCards on a Xerox 1186 workstation) along with concept maps and facet analysis, a combination that would now be done with topic maps. The screen shots of her graphical displays are quite interesting. Her interest in facets is in how to use them to show things to different people in different ways, for example, so that experts can enter knowledge into a system in one way while novices can see it in another. Duncan found that facet labels (e.g. Process and Product) prompted the expert to think of related concepts when inputting data, and made navigation easier for users. Facets can be joined together, e.g. "Agents (causing) Process," leading to a "reasoning system." She is especially interested in how to show relstionships between two things: e.g., A causes B, A uses B, A occurs in B. This is an important question in facet theory, but probably not worth worrying about in a small online classification where the relations are fixed and obvious. These articles may be difficult to find, in which case the reader can find a nice sumary in the next article, by Ellis and Vasconcelos (2000). Anyone interested in tracing the history of facets and hypertext will, however, want to see the originals.
Duncan, E.B.: ¬A faceted approach to hypertext (1989) 0.01
```
0.013667612 = product of:
  0.027335225 = sum of:
    0.027335225 = product of:
      0.05467045 = sum of:
        0.05467045 = weight(_text_:b in 2480) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05467045 = score(doc=2480,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.33900195 = fieldWeight in 2480, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2480)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

Three pre-web articles about using hypertext for knowledge representation. Duncan discusses how to use graphical, hypertext displays (she used Xerox PARC's NoteCards on a Xerox 1186 workstation) along with concept maps and facet analysis, a combination that would now be done with topic maps. The screen shots of her graphical displays are quite interesting. Her interest in facets is in how to use them to show things to different people in different ways, for example, so that experts can enter knowledge into a system in one way while novices can see it in another. Duncan found that facet labels (e.g. Process and Product) prompted the expert to think of related concepts when inputting data, and made navigation easier for users. Facets can be joined together, e.g. "Agents (causing) Process," leading to a "reasoning system." She is especially interested in how to show relstionships between two things: e.g., A causes B, A uses B, A occurs in B. This is an important question in facet theory, but probably not worth worrying about in a small online classification where the relations are fixed and obvious. These articles may be difficult to find, in which case the reader can find a nice sumary in the next article, by Ellis and Vasconcelos (2000). Anyone interested in tracing the history of facets and hypertext will, however, want to see the originals.
Duncan, E.B.: ¬A concept-map thesaurus as a knowledge-based hypertext interface to a bibliographic database (1990) 0.01
```
0.013667612 = product of:
  0.027335225 = sum of:
    0.027335225 = product of:
      0.05467045 = sum of:
        0.05467045 = weight(_text_:b in 2481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05467045 = score(doc=2481,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16126883 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045518078 = queryNorm
            0.33900195 = fieldWeight in 2481, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2481)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

Three pre-web articles about using hypertext for knowledge representation. Duncan discusses how to use graphical, hypertext displays (she used Xerox PARC's NoteCards on a Xerox 1186 workstation) along with concept maps and facet analysis, a combination that would now be done with topic maps. The screen shots of her graphical displays are quite interesting. Her interest in facets is in how to use them to show things to different people in different ways, for example, so that experts can enter knowledge into a system in one way while novices can see it in another. Duncan found that facet labels (e.g. Process and Product) prompted the expert to think of related concepts when inputting data, and made navigation easier for users. Facets can be joined together, e.g. "Agents (causing) Process," leading to a "reasoning system." She is especially interested in how to show relstionships between two things: e.g., A causes B, A uses B, A occurs in B. This is an important question in facet theory, but probably not worth worrying about in a small online classification where the relations are fixed and obvious. These articles may be difficult to find, in which case the reader can find a nice sumary in the next article, by Ellis and Vasconcelos (2000). Anyone interested in tracing the history of facets and hypertext will, however, want to see the originals.

Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

Years