Gnoli, C.: "Classic"vs. "freely" faceted classification (2007)
0.00
0.0011749709 = product of:
0.0023499418 = sum of:
0.0023499418 = product of:
0.0046998835 = sum of:
0.0046998835 = weight(_text_:a in 715) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0046998835 = score(doc=715,freq=4.0), product of:
0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.037706986 = queryNorm
0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 715, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=715)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Claudio Gnoli of the University of Pavia in Italy and Chair of ISKO Italy, explored the relative merits of classic 'faceted classification' (FC) and 'freely faceted classification' (FFC). In classic FC, the facets (and their relationships) which might be combined to express a compound subject, are restricted to those prescribed as inherent in the subject area. FC is therefore largely bounded by and restricted to a specific subject area. At the other extreme, free classification (as in the Web or folksonomies) allows the combination of values from multiple, disparate domains where the relationships among the elements are often indeterminate, and the semantics obscure. Claudio described how punched cards were an early example of free classification, and cited the coordination of dogs : postmen : bites as one where the absence of defined relationships made the semantics ambiguous
