Search (440 results, page 22 of 22)

0.0056677163 = product of:
  0.0113354325 = sum of:
    0.0113354325 = product of:
      0.022670865 = sum of:
        0.022670865 = weight(_text_:r in 5423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022670865 = score(doc=5423,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12397416 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037451506 = queryNorm
            0.18286766 = fieldWeight in 5423, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5423)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Erweiterte Fassung in Dieter E. Zimmer: Die Vernunft der Gefühle - Ursprung, Natur und Sinn der menschlichen Emotion. München: R. Piper & Co. Verlag, 1981, S. 194-232.

0.0056677163 = product of:
  0.0113354325 = sum of:
    0.0113354325 = product of:
      0.022670865 = sum of:
        0.022670865 = weight(_text_:r in 1008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022670865 = score(doc=1008,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12397416 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037451506 = queryNorm
            0.18286766 = fieldWeight in 1008, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1008)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0050741616 = product of:
  0.010148323 = sum of:
    0.010148323 = product of:
      0.020296646 = sum of:
        0.020296646 = weight(_text_:22 in 3624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020296646 = score(doc=3624,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13114879 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037451506 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3624, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3624)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Original in: Pettee, J.: The history and theory of the alphabetical subject approach to books. New York: Wilson 1946. S.22-25.

0.004534173 = product of:
  0.009068346 = sum of:
    0.009068346 = product of:
      0.018136691 = sum of:
        0.018136691 = weight(_text_:r in 2606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018136691 = score(doc=2606,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12397416 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037451506 = queryNorm
            0.14629413 = fieldWeight in 2606, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2606)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Editor

Atkins, T.V.; Ostrow, R.

0.004534173 = product of:
  0.009068346 = sum of:
    0.009068346 = product of:
      0.018136691 = sum of:
        0.018136691 = weight(_text_:r in 3621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018136691 = score(doc=3621,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12397416 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037451506 = queryNorm
            0.14629413 = fieldWeight in 3621, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3621)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Henry Evelyn Bliss (1870-1955) devoted several decades of his life to the study of classification and the development of the Bibliographic Classification scheme while serving as a librarian in the College of the City of New York. In the course of the development of the Bibliographic Classification, Bliss developed a body of classification theory published in a number of articles and books, among which the best known are The Organization of Knowledge and the System of the Sciences (1929), Organization of Knowledge in Libraries and the Subject Approach to Books (1933; 2nd ed., 1939), and the lengthy preface to A Bibliographic Classification (Volumes 1-2, 1940; 2nd ed., 1952). In developing the Bibliographic Classification, Bliss carefully established its philosophical and theoretical basis, more so than was attempted by the makers of other classification schemes, with the possible exception of S. R. Ranganathan (q.v.) and his Colon Classification. The basic principles established by Bliss for the Bibliographic Classification are: consensus, collocation of related subjects, subordination of special to general and gradation in specialty, and the relativity of classes and of classification (hence alternative location and alternative treatment). In the preface to the schedules of A Bibliographic Classification, Bliss spells out the general principles of classification as weIl as principles specifically related to his scheme. The first volume of the schedules appeared in 1940. In 1952, he issued a second edition of the volume with a rewritten preface, from which the following excerpt is taken, and with the addition of a "Concise Synopsis," which is also included here to illustrate the principles of classificatory structure. In the excerpt reprinted below, Bliss discusses the correlation between classes, concepts, and terms, as weIl as the hierarchical structure basic to his classification scheme. In his discussion of cross-classification, Bliss recognizes the "polydimensional" nature of classification and the difficulties inherent in the two-dimensional approach which is characteristic of linear classification. This is one of the earliest works in which the multidimensional nature of classification is recognized. The Bibliographic Classification did not meet with great success in the United States because the Dewey Decimal Classification and the Library of Congress Classification were already weIl ensconced in American libraries by then. Nonetheless, it attracted considerable attention in the British Commonwealth and elsewhere in the world. A committee was formed in Britain which later became the Bliss Classification Association. A faceted edition of the scheme has been in preparation under the direction of J. Mills and V. Broughton. Several parts of this new edition, entitled Bliss Bibliographic Classification, have been published.

0.004534173 = product of:
  0.009068346 = sum of:
    0.009068346 = product of:
      0.018136691 = sum of:
        0.018136691 = weight(_text_:r in 3628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018136691 = score(doc=3628,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12397416 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037451506 = queryNorm
            0.14629413 = fieldWeight in 3628, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3628)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

To those outside the field of library science, the name Melvil Dewey (1851-1931) is virtually synonymous with library classification. To those in the field, Dewey has been recognized as the premier classification maker. His enormously successful system (i.e., successful in terms of the wide adoption of the system around the world for over one hundred years) has now undergone nineteen editions. The Dewey Decimal Classification has been translated into more than twenty languages and is the most widely adopted classification scheme in the world. Even in its earliest manifestations, the Dewey Decimal Classification contained features that anticipated modern classification theory. Among these are the use of mnemonics and the commonly applied standard subdivisions, later called "common isolates" by S. R. Ranganathan (q.v.), which are the mainstays of facet analysis and synthesis. The device of standard subdivisions is an indication of the recognition of common aspects that pervade all subjects. The use of mnemonics, whereby recurring concepts in the scheme are represented by the same notation, for example, geographic concepts and language concepts, eased the transition of the Dewey Decimal Classification from a largely enumerative system to an increasingly faceted one. Another significant feature of the Dewey Decimal Classification is the use of the hierarchical notation based an the arabic numeral system. To a large extent, this feature accounts for the wide use and success of the system in the world across language barriers. With the prospect of increasing online information retrieval, the hierarchical notation will have a significant impact an the effectiveness of the Dewey Decimal Classification as an online retrieval tool. Because the notation is hierarchical, for example, with increasing digits in a number representing narrower subjects and decreasing digits indicating broader subjects, the Dewey Decimal Classification is particularly useful in generic searches for broadening or narrowing search results. In the preface to the second edition of his Decimal Classification Dewey explained the features of his "new" system. The excerpt below presents his ideas and theory concerning the rational basis of his classification, the standard subdivisions, the hierarchical notation based an decimal numbers, the use of mnemonics, the relative index, and relative location. It also reflects Dewey's lifelong interest in simplified spelling.

0.004534173 = product of:
  0.009068346 = sum of:
    0.009068346 = product of:
      0.018136691 = sum of:
        0.018136691 = weight(_text_:r in 3636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018136691 = score(doc=3636,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12397416 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037451506 = queryNorm
            0.14629413 = fieldWeight in 3636, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3636)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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:

0.004534173 = product of:
  0.009068346 = sum of:
    0.009068346 = product of:
      0.018136691 = sum of:
        0.018136691 = weight(_text_:r in 3641) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018136691 = score(doc=3641,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12397416 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037451506 = queryNorm
            0.14629413 = fieldWeight in 3641, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3641)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.004534173 = product of:
  0.009068346 = sum of:
    0.009068346 = product of:
      0.018136691 = sum of:
        0.018136691 = weight(_text_:r in 571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018136691 = score(doc=571,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12397416 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037451506 = queryNorm
            0.14629413 = fieldWeight in 571, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=571)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A native of Germany and a former teacher of languages and music, Julius Otto Kaiser (1868-1927) came to the Philadelphia Commercial Museum to be its librarian in 1896. Faced with the problem of making "information" accessible, he developed a method of indexing he called systematic indexing. The first draft of his scheme, published in 1896-97, was an important landmark in the history of subject analysis. R. K. Olding credits Kaiser with making the greatest single advance in indexing theory since Charles A. Cutter and John Metcalfe eulogizes him by observing that "in sheer capacity for really scientific and logical thinking, Kaiser's was probably the best mind that has ever applied itself to subject indexing." Kaiser was an admirer of "system." By systematic indexing he meant indicating information not with natural language expressions as, for instance, Cutter had advocated, but with artificial expressions constructed according to formulas. Kaiser grudged natural language its approximateness, its vagaries, and its ambiguities. The formulas he introduced were to provide a "machinery for regularising or standardising language" (paragraph 67). Kaiser recognized three categories or "facets" of index terms: (1) terms of concretes, representing things, real or imaginary (e.g., money, machines); (2) terms of processes, representing either conditions attaching to things or their actions (e.g., trade, manufacture); and (3) terms of localities, representing, for the most part, countries (e.g., France, South Africa). Expressions in Kaiser's index language were called statements. Statements consisted of sequences of terms, the syntax of which was prescribed by formula. These formulas specified sequences of terms by reference to category types. Only three citation orders were permitted: a term in the concrete category followed by one in the process category (e.g., Wool-Scouring); (2) a country term followed by a process term (e.g., Brazil - Education); and (3) a concrete term followed by a country term, followed by a process term (e.g., Nitrate-Chile-Trade). Kaiser's system was a precursor of two of the most significant developments in twentieth-century approaches to subject access-the special purpose use of language for indexing, thus the concept of index language, which was to emerge as a generative idea at the time of the second Cranfield experiment (1966) and the use of facets to categorize subject indicators, which was to become the characterizing feature of analytico-synthetic indexing methods such as the Colon classification. In addition to its visionary quality, Kaiser's work is notable for its meticulousness and honesty, as can be seen, for instance, in his observations about the difficulties in facet definition.

0.004534173 = product of:
  0.009068346 = sum of:
    0.009068346 = product of:
      0.018136691 = sum of:
        0.018136691 = weight(_text_:r in 4075) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018136691 = score(doc=4075,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12397416 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037451506 = queryNorm
            0.14629413 = fieldWeight in 4075, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4075)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Enthält u.a. die Beiträge: CUBE, A. von: Rechts und links, vorne und hinten - alles vertauscht?; SCHUCHARDT, H.: Brief an eine Einsame; HOFFMANN, G.E.: Ein Beileidsschreiben an unsere Juristen - durch einige Glückwünsche verziert; BLEUEL, H.P.: Schriftsteller und Neue Medien; FABIAN, W.: Das späte Erwachen: zum medienpolitischen Bewußtsein der Gewerkschaften; JUNGK, R.: Kabelfernsehen und Nachrüstung; FRANKE, H.W.: Das Gutenberg-Konzil - ins Mediendeutsch übersetzt; WEIDHAAS, P.: Beim Putsch wird als erstes der Sender gestürmt; MÜCKENBERGER, U.: Detektiv-Automat: Terror der Sachlichkeit und Recht auf Unordnung; SCHIRMBECK, H.: Ein Babel per Kabel? Betrachtungen zur Sozial-Ästhetik des Fernsehens; FLECHTHEIM, O.K.: Dreimal Zukunft - ein Weg zum homo humanus; PÄCH, S.: Die Bilderwelt des elektronischen Zeitalters: Video- und Computerkunst

0.0044398913 = product of:
  0.008879783 = sum of:
    0.008879783 = product of:
      0.017759565 = sum of:
        0.017759565 = weight(_text_:22 in 3644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017759565 = score(doc=3644,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13114879 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037451506 = queryNorm
            0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 3644, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3644)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Original in: Information retrieval today: papers presented at an Institute conducted by the Library School and the Center for Continuation Study, University of Minnesota, Sept. 19-22, 1962. Ed. by Wesley Simonton. Minneapolis, Minn.: The Center, 1963. S.21-36.

0.0039674016 = product of:
  0.007934803 = sum of:
    0.007934803 = product of:
      0.015869606 = sum of:
        0.015869606 = weight(_text_:r in 18) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015869606 = score(doc=18,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12397416 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037451506 = queryNorm
            0.12800737 = fieldWeight in 18, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=18)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Enthält die Beiträge: GROLIER, E. de: Classifications as a cultural artefacts; FOSKETT, D.J., S. BURY: Concept organisation and universal classification systems; ROLLAND-THOMAS, P.: Towards the establishment of the validity of encyclopedic library classification systems; KASHYAP, C.M.M.: General theory of measurement and theory of subjects; WELLISCH, H.H.: A new classification of the world's language; MILLS, J.: Practice and theory in a general classification: the new BLISS Classification (BC2); GOPINATH, M.A.: Application of general systems theory to the classification theory of Ranganathan; AUSTIN, D.: Basic concept classes and primitive relations; FELBER; H., W. NEDOBITY: The basis of Wüster's classification research; EISENWORT, W.: Remarks on certain foundational problems of a general theory of terminology; GÖDERT, W.: Library subject analysis in tension between universality and subject specialty; WAHLIN, E.: Analysis of different ordering principles in the area 'technology' (T), 'industry' (I) and 'material culture' (M) - the TIM project; SVENONIUS, E.: Indexical contents; BHATTACHARYYA, G.: Classaurus: its fundamentals, design and use; RICHMOND, P.A.: Classification in syndetic structures; CRAVEN, T.C.: The representation of facets in a general concept network for index display generation; CIGANIK, M.: Fuzzy faceted thesaurus construction; DEVADASON, F.J., M. KOTHANDA RAMANUJAM: Computer-aided construction of an 'alphabetic' classaurus; SECHSER, O.: Theoretical generalizations in retrieval system research, their objectivity and relevance; KUMAR, K.: Theoretical bases for universal classification systems; GLICKERT, P.: Gradational classification: a topic-tagging scheme for computerized production of a scannable list; PEJTERSEN, A.M.: A new approach to the classification of fiction; AUSTIN, J.: The AMP classification system for fiction: trial applications and retrieval tests; BONNER, R.: Community information classification research prject: user oriented empirical methods of classification construction; BORKO, H.: The role of classification in online retrieval systems and automated libraries; KELM, B., B. MAASSEN: Weiterentwicklung der Sacherschließungsarbeit an der Deutschen Bibliothek; JOITA, E., P. ATANASIU, V. TEODORU: The use of ordering systems by different user groups; COCHRANE, P.A.: Classification as a users's tool in online public access catalogs; TRAVIS, I.L.: Faceted classification in an online environment; WILLIAMSON, N.J.: Videotex information retrieval systems: the logical development and optimization of tree structures in a general online interactive system; SCHABAS, A.H.: Videotex information systems: complements to the tree structure; WERSIG, G., M. BURKART-SABSOUB: Empirical classification research as a basis of informaton policy; MALANGA, G.: Classifying and screening journal literature with citation data; RIGBY, M.: The use of the UDC in automated terminology data banks; SWAYDAN, N.: The universal classification and the needs of libraries in developing countries; MEDER, N.: Family resemblance and empirical classification, cluster analysis: its philosophy of science and strategy of research; KRAUTH, J.: Models of the measurement of similarity; LÖFFLER, G.: Cluster-Strukturvergleiche - Ein Ansatz zur Zusammenhangsanalyse multivariat definierter Raumstrukturen; KRISHNAMURTHY, E.V., VENKATASEKHAR, H.S.: A relational data-base system and query language for storage, manipulation and retrieval of virus data. -

0.0039674016 = product of:
  0.007934803 = sum of:
    0.007934803 = product of:
      0.015869606 = sum of:
        0.015869606 = weight(_text_:r in 3631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015869606 = score(doc=3631,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12397416 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037451506 = queryNorm
            0.12800737 = fieldWeight in 3631, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3631)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Among the theorists in the field of subject analysis in the twentieth century, none has been more influential than S. R. Ranganathan (1892-1972) of India, a mathematician by training who turned to librarianship and made some of the most far-reaching contributions to the theory of librarianship in general and subject analysis in particular. Dissatisfied with both the Dewey Decimal Classification and the Universal Decimal Classification, Ranganathan set out to develop his own system. His Colon Classification was first published in 1933 and went through six editions; the seventh edition was in progress when Ranganathan died in 1972. In the course of developing the Colon Classification, Ranganathan formulated a body of classification theory which was published in numerous writings, of which the best known are Elements of Library Classification (1945; 3rd ed., 1962) and Prolegomena to Library Classification (1967). Among the principles Ranganathan established, the most powerful and influential are those relating to facet analysis. Ranganathan demonstrated that facet analysis (breaking down subjects into their component parts) and synthesis (recombining these parts to fit the documents) provide the most viable approach to representing the contents of documents. Although the idea and use of facets, though not always called by that name, have been present for a long time (for instance, in the Dewey Decimal Classification and Charles A. Cutter's Expansive Classification), Ranganathan was the person who systematized the ideas and established principles for them. For his Colon Classification, Ranganathan identified five fundamental categories: Personality (P), Material (M), Energy (E), Space (S) and Time (T) and the citation order PMEST based an the idea of decreasing concreteness.

0.0039674016 = product of:
  0.007934803 = sum of:
    0.007934803 = product of:
      0.015869606 = sum of:
        0.015869606 = weight(_text_:r in 3635) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015869606 = score(doc=3635,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12397416 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037451506 = queryNorm
            0.12800737 = fieldWeight in 3635, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3635)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The idea of computing with concepts as mathematicians manipulate variables in equations goes back at least as far as G. W. Leibniz (1663). Leibniz dreamed of a universal calculus, an ambiguity-free language, with which scholars could communicate ideas with mathematical precision. George Boole, in his investigation of the laws of thought, contributed to the realization of this idea by developing a calculus of classes (1847). A modern visionary who saw a practical application of Boole's work and further contributed to the idea of communicating by "computing" was Mortimer Taube (1910-1965), a member of the Library of Congress staff from 1944 to 1949 who later founded Documentation, Inc. He proposed communicating with a mechanized information store by combining concepts using the Boolean operators, AND, OR and NOT. The following selection contains one of the first presentations of a technique Taube called "coordinate indexing" and what later has come to be called "post coordinate indexing" or Boolean searching. This selection is interesting an three counts. It is interesting first of all because of its early date-1950. Though the idea of coordinate indexing had been anticipated in manual systems of the punched card sort, these systems were limited, relying for the most part an repeated application of the AND operator. To conceptualize the full power that could be achieved by Boolean search strategy in mechanized systems was an imaginative step forward. Second, the selection is interesting insofar as the idea of coordinate indexing is couched, indeed nearly hidden, in a somewhat ponderous essay an the compatibility of universal and special classifications and the merits of different methods of information organization. Ponderous though it is, the essay is worth a careful reading. The perspective it gives is enlightening, a reminder that the roots of information science reach far back into the bibliographic past. The third and perhaps most interesting aspect of this selection is that in it Taube looks beyond the technique of coordinate indexing to envisage its implications an bibliographic organization. (Now more than thirty years later we are still attempting to understand these implications.) What Taube saw was a new method of bibliographic organization, which, not ingenuously, he observed might seem almost bumptious in the face of a two thousand year history of organizing information. This "new" method was, however, being proposed elsewhere, albeit in different guise, by S. R. Ranganathan (q.v.) and his school. It was the method of organizing information using abstract categories called fields or facets. These categories, unlike those used in the great traditional classifications, were not locked in procrustean hierarchical structures, but could be freely synthesized or combined in indexing or retrieval. In short, Taube's voice was among those at midcentury supporting the move from enumerative to synthetic subject approaches. The fact that it was an American voice and one especially weIl informed about bibliography and computers is perhaps what led Jesse Shera to refer to Taube as "the Melvil Dewey ... of midtwentieth century American Librarianship," one who was able "to weld successfully conventional librarianship and the then-emerging information science."

0.0039674016 = product of:
  0.007934803 = sum of:
    0.007934803 = product of:
      0.015869606 = sum of:
        0.015869606 = weight(_text_:r in 3645) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015869606 = score(doc=3645,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12397416 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037451506 = queryNorm
            0.12800737 = fieldWeight in 3645, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3645)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The selection that follows was chosen as it represents "a very early paper an the possibilities allowed by computers an documentation." In the early 1960s computers were being used to provide simple automatic indexing systems wherein keywords were extracted from documents. The problem with such systems was that they lacked vocabulary control, thus documents related in subject matter were not always collocated in retrieval. To improve retrieval by improving recall is the raison d'être of vocabulary control tools such as classifications and thesauri. The question arose whether it was possible by automatic means to construct classes of terms, which when substituted, one for another, could be used to improve retrieval performance? One of the first theoretical approaches to this question was initiated by R. M. Needham and Karen Sparck Jones at the Cambridge Language Research Institute in England.t The question was later pursued using experimental methodologies by Sparck Jones, who, as a Senior Research Associate in the Computer Laboratory at the University of Cambridge, has devoted her life's work to research in information retrieval and automatic naturai language processing. Based an the principles of numerical taxonomy, automatic classification techniques start from the premise that two objects are similar to the degree that they share attributes in common. When these two objects are keywords, their similarity is measured in terms of the number of documents they index in common. Step 1 in automatic classification is to compute mathematically the degree to which two terms are similar. Step 2 is to group together those terms that are "most similar" to each other, forming equivalence classes of intersubstitutable terms. The technique for forming such classes varies and is the factor that characteristically distinguishes different approaches to automatic classification. The technique used by Needham and Sparck Jones, that of clumping, is described in the selection that follows. Questions that must be asked are whether the use of automatically generated classes really does improve retrieval performance and whether there is a true eco nomic advantage in substituting mechanical for manual labor. Several years after her work with clumping, Sparck Jones was to observe that while it was not wholly satisfactory in itself, it was valuable in that it stimulated research into automatic classification. To this it might be added that it was valuable in that it introduced to libraryl information science the methods of numerical taxonomy, thus stimulating us to think again about the fundamental nature and purpose of classification. In this connection it might be useful to review how automatically derived classes differ from those of manually constructed classifications: 1) the manner of their derivation is purely a posteriori, the ultimate operationalization of the principle of literary warrant; 2) the relationship between members forming such classes is essentially statistical; the members of a given class are similar to each other not because they possess the class-defining characteristic but by virtue of sharing a family resemblance; and finally, 3) automatically derived classes are not related meaningfully one to another, that is, they are not ordered in traditional hierarchical and precedence relationships.

0.0039674016 = product of:
  0.007934803 = sum of:
    0.007934803 = product of:
      0.015869606 = sum of:
        0.015869606 = weight(_text_:r in 3647) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015869606 = score(doc=3647,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12397416 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037451506 = queryNorm
            0.12800737 = fieldWeight in 3647, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3647)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The selection in this reader by R. M. Needham and K. Sparck Jones reports an early approach to automatic classification that was taken in England. The following selection reviews various approaches that were being pursued in the United States at about the same time. It then discusses a particular approach initiated in the early 1960s by Harold Borko, at that time Head of the Language Processing and Retrieval Research Staff at the System Development Corporation, Santa Monica, California and, since 1966, a member of the faculty at the Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of California, Los Angeles. As was described earlier, there are two steps in automatic classification, the first being to identify pairs of terms that are similar by virtue of co-occurring as index terms in the same documents, and the second being to form equivalence classes of intersubstitutable terms. To compute similarities, Borko and his associates used a standard correlation formula; to derive classification categories, where Needham and Sparck Jones used clumping, the Borko team used the statistical technique of factor analysis. The fact that documents can be classified automatically, and in any number of ways, is worthy of passing notice. Worthy of serious attention would be a demonstra tion that a computer-based classification system was effective in the organization and retrieval of documents. One reason for the inclusion of the following selection in the reader is that it addresses the question of evaluation. To evaluate the effectiveness of their automatically derived classification, Borko and his team asked three questions. The first was Is the classification reliable? in other words, could the categories derived from one sample of texts be used to classify other texts? Reliability was assessed by a case-study comparison of the classes derived from three different samples of abstracts. The notso-surprising conclusion reached was that automatically derived classes were reliable only to the extent that the sample from which they were derived was representative of the total document collection. The second evaluation question asked whether the classification was reasonable, in the sense of adequately describing the content of the document collection. The answer was sought by comparing the automatically derived categories with categories in a related classification system that was manually constructed. Here the conclusion was that the automatic method yielded categories that fairly accurately reflected the major area of interest in the sample collection of texts; however, since there were only eleven such categories and they were quite broad, they could not be regarded as suitable for use in a university or any large general library. The third evaluation question asked whether automatic classification was accurate, in the sense of producing results similar to those obtainabie by human cIassifiers. When using human classification as a criterion, automatic classification was found to be 50 percent accurate.

0.0039674016 = product of:
  0.007934803 = sum of:
    0.007934803 = product of:
      0.015869606 = sum of:
        0.015869606 = weight(_text_:r in 2632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015869606 = score(doc=2632,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12397416 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037451506 = queryNorm
            0.12800737 = fieldWeight in 2632, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2632)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A major contribution of cognitive psychology has been the conceptualization of knowledge as memory representations in the form of scripts, frames, or schemata (Anderson & Pearson, 1984; Rumelhart & Ortony, 1977; Shank & Abelson, 1977; Spiro, 1980). Schemata are defined as "packets of integrated information on various topics" (Hunt, 1993 , p.530). Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, cognitive psychologists were interested in describing the nature of these packets of information. Spiro (1980 ) demonstrated the constructive and complex nature of schemata and highlighted contextual factors--including tasks, texts, and situational contexts--that influenced how knowledge is organized in memory. Recently, cognitive researchers have come to view knowledge and schemata as multidimensional (Jetton, Rupley, & Willson, 1995). For example, researchers have differentiated novice and experts' knowledge structures in subject-matter domains (Chase & Simon, 1973; Chi, Glaser, & Rees, 1982; Larkin, McDermott, Simon, & Simon, 1981; Voss, Greene, Post, & Penner, 1983). Researchers have examined discourse knowledge--knowledge about language and how it works (McCutchen, 1986). Another aspect of knowledge that has been extensively studied is strategic knowledge--knowledge about procedures for accomplishing a goal or task (Alexander & Judy, 1988; J. R. Anderson, 1983a; Prawat, 1989).

0.0034006299 = product of:
  0.0068012597 = sum of:
    0.0068012597 = product of:
      0.013602519 = sum of:
        0.013602519 = weight(_text_:r in 3640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013602519 = score(doc=3640,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12397416 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037451506 = queryNorm
            0.1097206 = fieldWeight in 3640, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3640)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

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.

0.0034006299 = product of:
  0.0068012597 = sum of:
    0.0068012597 = product of:
      0.013602519 = sum of:
        0.013602519 = weight(_text_:r in 3613) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013602519 = score(doc=3613,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12397416 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037451506 = queryNorm
            0.1097206 = fieldWeight in 3613, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3613)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0028338581 = product of:
  0.0056677163 = sum of:
    0.0056677163 = product of:
      0.0113354325 = sum of:
        0.0113354325 = weight(_text_:r in 3622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0113354325 = score(doc=3622,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12397416 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037451506 = queryNorm
            0.09143383 = fieldWeight in 3622, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3622)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Eine exzellente (und durch die Herausgeber kommentierte) Zusammenstellung und Wiedergabe folgender Originalbeiträge: CUTTER, C.A.: Subjects; DEWEY, M.: Decimal classification and relativ index: introduction; HOPWOOD, H.V.: Dewey expanded; HULME, E.W.: Principles of book classification; KAISER, J.O.: Systematic indexing; MARTEL, C.: Classification: a brief conspectus of present day library practice; BLISS, H.E.: A bibliographic classification: principles and definitions; RANGANATHAN, S.R.: Facet analysis: fundamental categories; PETTEE, J.: The subject approach to books and the development of the dictionary catalog; PETTEE, J.: Fundamental principles of the dictionary catalog; PETTEE, J.: Public libraries and libraries as purveyors of information; HAYKIN, D.J.: Subject headings: fundamental concepts; TAUBE, M.: Functional approach to bibliographic organization: a critique and a proposal; VICKERY, B.C.: Systematic subject indexing; FEIBLEMAN, J.K.: Theory of integrative levels; GARFIELD, E.: Citation indexes for science; CRG: The need for a faceted classification as the basis of all methods of information retrieval; LUHN, H.P.: Keyword-in-context index for technical literature; COATES, E.J.: Significance and term relationship in compound headings; FARRADANE, J.E.L.: Fundamental fallacies and new needs in classification; FOSKETT, D.J.: Classification and integrative levels; CLEVERDON, C.W. u. J. MILLS: The testing of index language devices; MOOERS, C.N.: The indexing language of an information retrieval system; NEEDHAM, R.M. u. K. SPARCK JONES: Keywords and clumps; ROLLING, L.: The role of graphic display of concept relationships in indexing and retrieval vocabularies; BORKO, H.: Research in computer based classification systems; WILSON, P.: Subjects and the sense of position; LANCASTER, F.W.: Evaluating the performance of a large computerized information system; SALTON, G.: Automatic processing of foreign language documents; FAIRTHORNE, R.A.: Temporal structure in bibliographic classification; AUSTIN, D. u. J.A. DIGGER: PRECIS: The Preserved Context Index System; FUGMANN, R.: The complementarity of natural and indexing languages