Search (44 results, page 1 of 3)

0.08204757 = product of:
  0.24614269 = sum of:
    0.24614269 = weight(_text_:analogies in 931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24614269 = score(doc=931,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.38810563 = queryWeight, product of:
          8.200379 = idf(docFreq=32, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047327764 = queryNorm
        0.6342157 = fieldWeight in 931, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          8.200379 = idf(docFreq=32, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=931)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Library classification traces the origins of the subject and leads an to the latest developments in it. This user-friendly text explains concepts through analogies, diagrams, and tables. The fundamental but important topics an terminology of classification has been uniquely explained. The book deals with the recent trends in the use of computers in cataloguing including on-line systems, artificial intelligence systems etc. With its up-to-date and comprehensive coverage the book will serve as a degree students of Library and Information Science and also prove to be invaluable reference material to professionals and researchers.

0.04110273 = product of:
  0.12330818 = sum of:
    0.12330818 = sum of:
      0.07842237 = weight(_text_:group in 7241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07842237 = score(doc=7241,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047327764 = queryNorm
          0.35798392 = fieldWeight in 7241, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7241)
      0.04488581 = weight(_text_:22 in 7241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04488581 = score(doc=7241,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047327764 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 7241, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7241)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Discusses the reasons for the decision, taken at Florida International University Library to develop an in house classification system for their local documents collections. Reviews the structures of existing classification systems, noting their strengths and weaknesses in relation to the development of an in house system and describes the 5 components of the new system; geography, subject categories, extensions for population group and/or function, extensions for type of publication, and title/series designator

Footnote

Paper presented at conference on 'Local documents, a new classification scheme' at the Research Caucus of the Florida Library Association Annual Conference, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 22 Apr 95

0.020196848 = product of:
  0.060590543 = sum of:
    0.060590543 = product of:
      0.121181086 = sum of:
        0.121181086 = weight(_text_:group in 3640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.121181086 = score(doc=3640,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.5531697 = fieldWeight in 3640, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3640)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This classic paper presents the reasoning behind the research undertaken by the Classification Research Group in London, beginning in 1952 and producing, by 1955, the direction in which the Group's efforts were to go in the next thirty years. The Group's original purpose was to review the basic principles of indexing and classification without committing itself to any existing system. It began by uncovering - among existing systems such as indexes, classifications, automatic selectors, and other information retrieval systems - the steps in the process by means of which a search was performed. The Group went over this very carefully, identifying parts of the process each step of the way. At the time this work was performed systems such as UNITERMS, which did not survive, and other alphabetical coordinated indexes, mainly experimental, were a dime a dozen. Classification to most librarians meant Dewey and the Library of Congress systems, both of which have very serious shortcomings from an intellectual point of view. The Group finally came to the conclusion that a classification of knowledge was necessary for constructing any successful retrieval system. The question then became one of deciding which kind of classification system. The members identified ten unsatisfactory features of existing systems. In fact, they could not find any general class schedule that either was satisfactory or could be made satisfactory. Obviously then, a new system had to be made. The question became one of how to do this. Existing theories did not conform to the theory of logical division; dividing and subdividing an the basis of a single characteristic was not followed. Thus logical division, which is a "top down" method of analysis, was rejected. Generic relationships would have to be made by some other methodology. A "bottom-up" or inductive, as opposed to deductive, method was a possibility. The Group actually decided to use a system in which a given genus could be subdivided in more than one way, thus "yielding a homogeneous group of collateral species."
The technique chosen was S. R. Ranganathan's facet analysis (q.v.). This method works from the bottom up: a term is categorized according to its parent class, as a kind, state, property, action, operation upon something, result of an Operation, agent, and so on. These modes of definition represent characteristics of division. Following the publication of this paper, the group worked for over ten years developing systems following this general pattern with various changes and experimental arrangements. Ranganathan's Colon Classification was the original of this type of method, but the Group rejected his contention that there are only five fundamental categories to be found in the knowledge base. They did, in fact, end up with varying numbers of categories in the experimental systems which they ultimately were to make. Notation was also recognized as a problem, being complex, illogical, lengthy, obscure and hard to understand. The Group tried to develop a rationale for notation, both as an ordering and as a finding device. To describe and represent a class, a notation could be long, but as a finding device, brevity would be preferable. The Group was to experiment with this aspect of classification and produce a number of interesting results. The Classification Research Group began meeting informally to discuss classification matters in 1952 and continues to meet, usually in London, to the present day. Most of the British authors whose work is presented in these pages have been members for most of the Group's life and continue in it. The Group maintains the basic position outlined in this paper to the present day. Its experimental approach has resulted in much more information about the nature and functions of classification systems. The ideal system has yet to be found. Classification research is still a promising area. The future calls for more experimentation based an reasoned approaches, following the example set by the Classification Research Group.

0.014937594 = product of:
  0.04481278 = sum of:
    0.04481278 = product of:
      0.08962556 = sum of:
        0.08962556 = weight(_text_:group in 3527) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08962556 = score(doc=3527,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.40912446 = fieldWeight in 3527, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3527)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Psychologists, philosophers and linguists analyse concepts and investigate their relationship to words. Concepts are also relevant to the issue of bibliographic classification, i.e. "catagorisation". Examines from a chronological point of view the various theories for the analysis and organisation of concepts ranging from the Vickery developed in 1954, to Austin's hypotheses, to Ranganathan's "fundamental categories" and the contribution made by CRG, the Classification Research Group. Illustrates other approaches to categorisation such as Farradane's (relationship between couples of concepts) and calls for a closer study of categories and concepts.

0.014937594 = product of:
  0.04481278 = sum of:
    0.04481278 = product of:
      0.08962556 = sum of:
        0.08962556 = weight(_text_:group in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08962556 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.40912446 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.013070395 = product of:
  0.039211184 = sum of:
    0.039211184 = product of:
      0.07842237 = sum of:
        0.07842237 = weight(_text_:group in 6991) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07842237 = score(doc=6991,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.35798392 = fieldWeight in 6991, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6991)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Stresses that S.R. Ranganathan was truly a great scholar, who made rich contribution to different aspects of library and information science, but is better known for his work in the field of library classification. discusses his distinctive contributions to classification such as normative principles, 3 plane model of work, freely faceted classification (involving facet analysis and the synthetic principle), postulational approach, fundamental categories and certain notational devices like the sector device, group notation device, emptying digit device and seminal mnemonic device. Regards these as seminal ideas forming the basis of his theory of library classification. Considers 7th ed. of the Colon Classification as the best example of the application of theses ideas

0.013070395 = product of:
  0.039211184 = sum of:
    0.039211184 = product of:
      0.07842237 = sum of:
        0.07842237 = weight(_text_:group in 3617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07842237 = score(doc=3617,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.35798392 = fieldWeight in 3617, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3617)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In view of the impact of systems theory for the construction of classification systems the two major contributions of Dewey are summarized as well as the new methods of facet analysis and organization brought into classification by Ranganathan. With the latter's "canonical" solution for the contents and arrangement of main classes, however, contemporary philosophical thought regarding the organization of knowledge seems to have been neglected. The work of the Classification Research Group and elsewhere considering integrative level theory will improve the science of classification systems construction. Besides this the influence from psychology and linguistics on the recognition of relationships between concepts is outlined as well as some practical implications of the systems approach on classification. (I.C.)

0.012824517 = product of:
  0.03847355 = sum of:
    0.03847355 = product of:
      0.0769471 = sum of:
        0.0769471 = weight(_text_:22 in 6404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0769471 = score(doc=6404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6404, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6404)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.012824517 = product of:
  0.03847355 = sum of:
    0.03847355 = product of:
      0.0769471 = sum of:
        0.0769471 = weight(_text_:22 in 3773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0769471 = score(doc=3773,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3773, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3773)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.012824517 = product of:
  0.03847355 = sum of:
    0.03847355 = product of:
      0.0769471 = sum of:
        0.0769471 = weight(_text_:22 in 3176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0769471 = score(doc=3176,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16573377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3176, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3176)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

6. 5.2017 18:46:22

0.011203195 = product of:
  0.033609584 = sum of:
    0.033609584 = product of:
      0.06721917 = sum of:
        0.06721917 = weight(_text_:group in 2475) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06721917 = score(doc=2475,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.30684334 = fieldWeight in 2475, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2475)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A perfect little book, with just 63 pages of text. From chapter A, Introduction, to U, Mechanization, it covers everything about making a faceted classification: what they are, why they are needed, how to do facet analysis, examples from existing faceted schemes, orderings, common subdivisions, the contents of each facet, notation, filing order, how to perform classification with the created system, and indexing. Each chapter is brief but has full coverage of the subject. "The technique of constructing a special faceted classification is not a settled, automatic, codified procedure. Nothing so complex as the field of knowledge could be analysed and organized by rule-of-thumb. We can therefore offer no more than a guide, describing tested procedures and discussing some difficulties." Vickery was a member of the Classification Research Group and one of the foremost classificationists.

0.011203195 = product of:
  0.033609584 = sum of:
    0.033609584 = product of:
      0.06721917 = sum of:
        0.06721917 = weight(_text_:group in 3533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06721917 = score(doc=3533,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.30684334 = fieldWeight in 3533, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3533)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Ontology, in its philosophical meaning, is the discipline investigating the structure of reality. Its findings can be relevant to knowledge organization, and models of knowledge can, in turn, offer relevant ontological suggestions. Several philosophers in time have pointed out that reality is structured into a series of integrative levels, like the physical, the biological, the mental, and the cultural, and that each level plays as a base for the emergence of more complex levels. More detailed theories of levels have been developed by Nicolai Hartmann and James K. Feibleman, and these have been considered as a source for structuring principles in bibliographic classification by both the Classification Research Group (CRG) and Ingetraut Dahlberg. CRG's analysis of levels and of their possible application to a new general classification scheme based an phenomena instead of disciplines, as it was formulated by Derek Austin in 1969, is examined in detail. Both benefits and open problems in applying integrative levels to bibliographic classification are pointed out.

0.011203195 = product of:
  0.033609584 = sum of:
    0.033609584 = product of:
      0.06721917 = sum of:
        0.06721917 = weight(_text_:group in 3842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06721917 = score(doc=3842,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.30684334 = fieldWeight in 3842, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3842)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Ranganathan's canons, principles, and postulates can easily confuse readers, especially because he revised and added to them in various editions of his many books. The Classification Research Group, who drew on Ranganathan's work as their basis for classification theory but developed it in their own way, has never clearly organized all their equivalent canons and principles. In this article Spiteri gathers the fundamental rules from both systems and compares and contrasts them. She makes her own clearer set of principles for constructing facets, stating the subject of a document, and designing notation. Spiteri's "simplified model" is clear and understandable, but certainly not simplistic. The model does not include methods for making a faceted system, but will serve as a very useful guide in how to turn initial work into a rigorous classification. Highly recommended

0.011203195 = product of:
  0.033609584 = sum of:
    0.033609584 = product of:
      0.06721917 = sum of:
        0.06721917 = weight(_text_:group in 5516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06721917 = score(doc=5516,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.30684334 = fieldWeight in 5516, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5516)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper addresses the process of adapting to a particular culture or context a classification that has grown out of western culture to become a global standard. The authors use a project that adapts DDC for use in a feminist/women's issues context to demonstrate an approach that works. The project is particularly useful as an interdisciplinary example. Discussion consists of four parts: (1) definition of the problem indicating the need for adaptation and efforts to date; (2) description of the methodology developed for creating an expansion; (3) description of the interface developed for actually doing the work, with its potential for a distributed group to work on it together (could even be internationally distributed); and (4) generalization of how the methodology could be used for particular contexts by country, ethnicity, perspective or other defining factors.

0.011203195 = product of:
  0.033609584 = sum of:
    0.033609584 = product of:
      0.06721917 = sum of:
        0.06721917 = weight(_text_:group in 3177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06721917 = score(doc=3177,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.30684334 = fieldWeight in 3177, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3177)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

After making the case that phenomena can be the primary unit of classification (Part 1), some basic principles to group and sort phenomena are considered. Entities can be grouped together on the basis of both their similarity (morphology) and their common origin (phylogeny). The resulting groups will form the classical hierarchical chains of types and subtypes. At every hierarchical degree, phenomena can form ordered sets (arrays), where their sorting can reflect levels of increasing organization, corresponding to an evolutionary order of appearance (emergence). The theory of levels of reality has been investigated by many philosophers and applied to knowledge organization systems by various authors, which are briefly reviewed. At the broadest degree, it allows to identify some major strata of phenomena (forms, matter, life, minds, societies and culture) in turn divided into layers. A list of twenty-six layers is proposed to form the main classes of the Integrative Levels Classification system. A combination of morphology and phylogeny can determine whether a given phenomenon should be a type of an existing level, or a level on its own.

0.010562475 = product of:
  0.031687424 = sum of:
    0.031687424 = product of:
      0.06337485 = sum of:
        0.06337485 = weight(_text_:group in 3636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06337485 = score(doc=3636,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.2892947 = fieldWeight in 3636, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3636)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Brian C. Vickery, Director and Professor, School of Library, Archive and Information Studies, University College, London, is a prolific writer on classification and information retrieval. This paper was one of the earliest to present initial efforts by the Classification Research Group (q.v.). In it he clearly outlined the need for classification in subject indexing, which, at the time he wrote, was not a commonplace understanding. In fact, some indexing systems were made in the first place specifically to avoid general classification systems which were out of date in all fast-moving disciplines, especially in the "hard" sciences. Vickery picked up Julia Pettee's work (q.v.) an the concealed classification in subject headings (1947) and added to it, mainly adopting concepts from the work of S. R. Ranganathan (q.v.). He had already published a paper an notation in classification, pointing out connections between notation, words, and the concepts which they represent. He was especially concerned about the structure of notational symbols as such symbols represented relationships among subjects. Vickery also emphasized that index terms cover all aspects of a subject so that, in addition to having a basis in classification, the ideal index system should also have standardized nomenclature, as weIl as show evidence of a systematic classing of elementary terms. The necessary linkage between system and terms should be one of a number of methods, notably:
- adding a relational term ("operator") to identify and join terms; - indicating grammatical case with terms where this would help clarify relationships; and - analyzing elementary terms to reveal fundamental categories where needed. He further added that a standard order for showing relational factors was highly desirable. Eventually, some years later, he was able to suggest such an order. This was accepted by his peers in the Classification Research Group, and utilized by Derek Austin in PRECIS (q.v.). Vickery began where Farradane began - with perception (a sound base according to current cognitive psychology). From this came further recognition of properties, parts, constituents, organs, effects, reactions, operations (physical and mental), added to the original "identity," "difference," "class membership," and "species." By defining categories more carefully, Vickery arrived at six (in addition to space (geographic) and time): - personality, thing, substance (e.g., dog, bicycle, rose) - part (e.g., paw, wheel, leaf) - substance (e.g., copper, water, butter) - action (e.g., scattering) - property (e.g., length, velocity) - operation (e.g., analysis, measurement) Thus, as early as 1953, the foundations were already laid for research that ultimately produced very sophisticated systems, such as PRECIS.

0.009335997 = product of:
  0.028007988 = sum of:
    0.028007988 = product of:
      0.056015976 = sum of:
        0.056015976 = weight(_text_:group in 5895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056015976 = score(doc=5895,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.2557028 = fieldWeight in 5895, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5895)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Broughton is one of the key people working on the second edition of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification (BC2). Her article has a brief, informative history of facets, then discusses semantic vs. syntactic relationships, standard facets used by Ranganathan and the Classification Research Group, facet analysis and citation order, and how to build subject indexes out of faceted classifications, all with occasional reference to digital environments and hypertext, but never with any specifics. It concludes by saying of faceted classification that the "capacity which it has to create highly sophisticated structures for the accommodation of complex objects suggests that it is worth investigation as an organizational tool for digital materials, and that the results of such investigation would be knowledge structures of unparalleled utility and elegance." How to build them is left to the reader, but this article provides an excellent starting point. It includes an example that shows how general concepts can be applied to a small set of documents and subjects, and how terms can be adapted to suit the material and users

0.009335997 = product of:
  0.028007988 = sum of:
    0.028007988 = product of:
      0.056015976 = sum of:
        0.056015976 = weight(_text_:group in 2291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056015976 = score(doc=2291,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.2557028 = fieldWeight in 2291, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Disciplines are felt by many to be a constraint in classification, though they are a structuring principle of most bibliographic classification schemes. A non-disciplinary approach has been explored by the Classification Research Group, and research in this direction has been resumed recently by the Integrative Level Classification project. This paper focuses on the role and the definition of facets in non-disciplinary schemes. A generalized definition of facets is suggested with reference to predicate logic, allowing for having facets of phenomena as well as facets of disciplines. The general categories under which facets are often subsumed can be related ontologically to the evolutionary sequence of integrative levels. As a facet can be semantically connected with phenomena from any other part of a general scheme, its values can belong to three types, here called extra-defined foci (either special or general), and context-defined foci. Non-disciplinary freely faceted classification is being tested by applying it to little bibliographic samples stored in a MySQL database, and developing Web search interfaces to demonstrate possible uses of the described techniques.

0.009335997 = product of:
  0.028007988 = sum of:
    0.028007988 = product of:
      0.056015976 = sum of:
        0.056015976 = weight(_text_:group in 2720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056015976 = score(doc=2720,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.2557028 = fieldWeight in 2720, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2720)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The facet-analytic paradigm is probably the most distinct approach to knowledge organization within Library and Information Science, and in many ways it has dominated what has be termed "modern classification theory". It was mainly developed by S.R. Ranganathan and the British Classification Research Group, but it is mostly based on principles of logical division developed more than two millennia ago. Colon Classification (CC) and Bliss 2 (BC2) are among the most important systems developed on this theoretical basis, but it has also influenced the development of other systems, such as the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) and is also applied in many websites. It still has a strong position in the field and it is the most explicit and "pure" theoretical approach to knowledge organization (KO) (but it is not by implication necessarily also the most important one). The strength of this approach is its logical principles and the way it provides structures in knowledge organization systems (KOS). The main weaknesses are (1) its lack of empirical basis and (2) its speculative ordering of knowledge without basis in the development or influence of theories and socio-historical studies. It seems to be based on the problematic assumption that relations between concepts are a priori and not established by the development of models, theories and laws.

0.009335997 = product of:
  0.028007988 = sum of:
    0.028007988 = product of:
      0.056015976 = sum of:
        0.056015976 = weight(_text_:group in 3849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056015976 = score(doc=3849,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21906674 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047327764 = queryNorm
            0.2557028 = fieldWeight in 3849, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.628715 = idf(docFreq=1173, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3849)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.