Search (247 results, page 2 of 13)

0.018529613 = product of:
  0.037059225 = sum of:
    0.037059225 = sum of:
      0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.005858987 = score(doc=3483,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 3483, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3483)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=3483,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3483, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3483)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Classification is an activity that transcends time and space and that bridges the divisions between different languages and cultures, including the divisions between academic disciplines. Classificatory activity, however, serves different purposes in different situations. Classifications for infonnation retrieval can be called "professional" classifications and classifications in other fields can be called "naïve" classifications because they are developed by people who have no particular interest in classificatory issues. The general purpose of naïve classification systems is to discover new knowledge. In contrast, the general purpose of information retrieval classifications is to classify pre-existing knowledge. Different classificatory purposes may thus inform systems that are intended to span the cultural specifics of the globalized information society. This paper builds an previous research into the purposes and characteristics of naïve classifications. It describes some of the relationships between the purpose and context of a naive classification, the units of analysis used in it, and the theory that the context and the units of analysis imply.

Footnote

Vgl.: Jacob, E.K.: Proposal for a classification of classifications built on Beghtol's distinction between "Naïve Classification" and "Professional Classification". In: Knowledge organization. 37(2010) no.2, S.111-120.

Pages

S.19-22

Type

a

0.018529613 = product of:
  0.037059225 = sum of:
    0.037059225 = sum of:
      0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 1417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.005858987 = score(doc=1417,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 1417, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1417)
      0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 1417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03120024 = score(doc=1417,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1417, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1417)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In recent years, Hjørland has developed a typology of basic epistemological approaches to KO that identifies four basic positions - empiricism, rationalism, historicism/hermeneutics, and pragmatism -with which to characterize the epistemological bases and methodological orientation of KOSs. Although scholars of KO have noted that the design of a single KOS may incorporate epistemological-methodological features from more than one of these approaches, studies of concrete examples of epistemologico-methodological eclecticism have been rare. In this paper, we consider the phenomenon of epistemologico-methodological eclecticism in one theoretically significant family of KOSs - namely analytico-synthetic, or faceted, KOSs - by examining two cases - Julius Otto Kaiser's method of Systematic Indexing (SI) and Brian Vickery's method of facet analysis (FA) for document classification. We show that both of these systems combined classical features of rationalism with elements of empiricism and pragmatism and argue that such eclecticism is the norm, rather than the exception, for such KOSs in general.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

Type

a

0.015794437 = product of:
  0.031588875 = sum of:
    0.031588875 = sum of:
      0.0066286866 = weight(_text_:a in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0066286866 = score(doc=2763,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.12482099 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.02496019 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02496019 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2763, 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=2763)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The different points of views an knowledge representation and organization from various research communities reflect underlying philosophies and paradigms in these communities. This paper reviews differences and relations in knowledge representation and organization and generalizes four paradigms-integrative and disintegrative pragmatism and integrative and disintegrative epistemologism. Examples such as classification, XML schemas, and ontologies are compared based an how they specify concepts, build data models, and encode knowledge organization structures. 1. Introduction Knowledge representation (KR) is a term that several research communities use to refer to somewhat different aspects of the same research area. The artificial intelligence (AI) community considers KR as simply "something to do with writing down, in some language or communications medium, descriptions or pictures that correspond in some salient way to the world or a state of the world" (Duce & Ringland, 1988, p. 3). It emphasizes the ways in which knowledge can be encoded in a computer program (Bench-Capon, 1990). For the library and information science (LIS) community, KR is literally the synonym of knowledge organization, i.e., KR is referred to as the process of organizing knowledge into classifications, thesauri, or subject heading lists. KR has another meaning in LIS: it "encompasses every type and method of indexing, abstracting, cataloguing, classification, records management, bibliography and the creation of textual or bibliographic databases for information retrieval" (Anderson, 1996, p. 336). Adding the social dimension to knowledge organization, Hjoerland (1997) states that knowledge is a part of human activities and tied to the division of labor in society, which should be the primary organization of knowledge. Knowledge organization in LIS is secondary or derived, because knowledge is organized in learned institutions and publications. These different points of views an KR suggest that an essential difference in the understanding of KR between both AI and LIS lies in the source of representationwhether KR targets human activities or derivatives (knowledge produced) from human activities. This difference also decides their difference in purpose-in AI KR is mainly computer-application oriented or pragmatic and the result of representation is used to support decisions an human activities, while in LIS KR is conceptually oriented or abstract and the result of representation is used for access to derivatives from human activities.

Date

12. 9.2004 17:22:35

Type

a

0.015186245 = product of:
  0.03037249 = sum of:
    0.03037249 = sum of:
      0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0054123 = score(doc=2346,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 2346, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2346)
      0.02496019 = weight(_text_:22 in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02496019 = score(doc=2346,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2346, 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=2346)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - Potential and benefits of classification schemes and thesauri in building organizational taxonomies cannot be fully utilized by organizations. Empirical data of building an organizational taxonomy by the top-down approach of using classification schemes and thesauri appear to be lacking. The paper seeks to make a contribution in this regard. Design/methodology/approach - A case study of building an organizational taxonomy was conducted in the information studies domain for the Division of Information Studies at Nanyang Technology University, Singapore. The taxonomy was built by using the Dewey Decimal Classification, the Information Science Taxonomy, two information systems taxonomies, and three thesauri (ASIS&T, LISA, and ERIC). Findings - Classification schemes and thesauri were found to be helpful in creating the structure and categories related to the subject facet of the taxonomy, but organizational community sources had to be consulted and several methods had to be employed. The organizational activities and stakeholders' needs had to be identified to determine the objectives, facets, and the subject coverage of the taxonomy. Main categories were determined by identifying the stakeholders' interests and consulting organizational community sources and domain taxonomies. Category terms were selected from terminologies of classification schemes, domain taxonomies, and thesauri against the stakeholders' interests. Hierarchical structures of the main categories were constructed in line with the stakeholders' perspectives and the navigational role taking advantage of structures/term relationships from classification schemes and thesauri. Categories were determined in line with the concepts and the hierarchical levels. Format of categories were uniformed according to a commonly used standard. The consistency principle was employed to make the taxonomy structure and categories neater. Validation of the draft taxonomy through consultations with the stakeholders further refined the taxonomy. Originality/value - No similar study could be traced in the literature. The steps and methods used in the taxonomy development, and the information studies taxonomy itself, will be helpful for library and information schools and other similar organizations in their effort to develop taxonomies for organizing content and aiding navigation on organizational sites.

Date

7.11.2008 15:22:04

Type

a

0.0054123 = product of:
  0.0108246 = sum of:
    0.0108246 = product of:
      0.0216492 = sum of:
        0.0216492 = weight(_text_:a in 290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0216492 = score(doc=290,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.40766364 = fieldWeight in 290, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=290)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Classification in the 1970s: a second look. Rev. ed. Ed.: A. Maltby

Type

a

0.004101291 = product of:
  0.008202582 = sum of:
    0.008202582 = product of:
      0.016405163 = sum of:
        0.016405163 = weight(_text_:a in 551) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016405163 = score(doc=551,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.3089162 = fieldWeight in 551, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=551)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.004101291 = product of:
  0.008202582 = sum of:
    0.008202582 = product of:
      0.016405163 = sum of:
        0.016405163 = weight(_text_:a in 181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016405163 = score(doc=181,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.3089162 = fieldWeight in 181, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=181)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

The future of classification. Ed. R. Marcella u. A. Maltby

Type

a

0.003827074 = product of:
  0.007654148 = sum of:
    0.007654148 = product of:
      0.015308296 = sum of:
        0.015308296 = weight(_text_:a in 1988) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015308296 = score(doc=1988,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.28826174 = fieldWeight in 1988, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1988)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.003515392 = product of:
  0.007030784 = sum of:
    0.007030784 = product of:
      0.014061568 = sum of:
        0.014061568 = weight(_text_:a in 4250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014061568 = score(doc=4250,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.26478532 = fieldWeight in 4250, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4250)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Reports the results of a survey of 23 published classifications taken from a variety of subject fields

Type

a

0.0033826875 = product of:
  0.006765375 = sum of:
    0.006765375 = product of:
      0.01353075 = sum of:
        0.01353075 = weight(_text_:a in 86) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01353075 = score(doc=86,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.25478977 = fieldWeight in 86, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=86)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0033826875 = product of:
  0.006765375 = sum of:
    0.006765375 = product of:
      0.01353075 = sum of:
        0.01353075 = weight(_text_:a in 1256) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01353075 = score(doc=1256,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.25478977 = fieldWeight in 1256, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=1256)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.00334869 = product of:
  0.00669738 = sum of:
    0.00669738 = product of:
      0.01339476 = sum of:
        0.01339476 = weight(_text_:a in 1655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01339476 = score(doc=1655,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.25222903 = fieldWeight in 1655, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1655)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.00334869 = product of:
  0.00669738 = sum of:
    0.00669738 = product of:
      0.01339476 = sum of:
        0.01339476 = weight(_text_:a in 3004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01339476 = score(doc=3004,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.25222903 = fieldWeight in 3004, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3004)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.00334869 = product of:
  0.00669738 = sum of:
    0.00669738 = product of:
      0.01339476 = sum of:
        0.01339476 = weight(_text_:a in 564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01339476 = score(doc=564,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.25222903 = fieldWeight in 564, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=564)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.00334869 = product of:
  0.00669738 = sum of:
    0.00669738 = product of:
      0.01339476 = sum of:
        0.01339476 = weight(_text_:a in 3162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01339476 = score(doc=3162,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.25222903 = fieldWeight in 3162, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3162)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

The future of classification. Ed. R. Marcella u. A. Maltby

Type

a

0.00334869 = product of:
  0.00669738 = sum of:
    0.00669738 = product of:
      0.01339476 = sum of:
        0.01339476 = weight(_text_:a in 6152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01339476 = score(doc=6152,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.25222903 = fieldWeight in 6152, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6152)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Library science with a slant to documentation and information studies. 36(1999) no.2, S.73-77

Type

a

0.0033143433 = product of:
  0.0066286866 = sum of:
    0.0066286866 = product of:
      0.013257373 = sum of:
        0.013257373 = weight(_text_:a in 655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013257373 = score(doc=655,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.24964198 = fieldWeight in 655, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=655)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Presents a short review of fundamental knowledge representation methods: logical, graphical, structured and procedural notational schemes. Special attention is given to notational schemes' classifications and the characteristics on which classifications were done. Knowledge representation is one of the central problems in artificial intelligence, but a complete theory of it does not exist, and it remains a set of methods that are used, with more or less success, in attempts to solve a given problem. The characteristics of knowledge schemes play a significant role

Type

a

0.0032090992 = product of:
  0.0064181983 = sum of:
    0.0064181983 = product of:
      0.012836397 = sum of:
        0.012836397 = weight(_text_:a in 1654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012836397 = score(doc=1654,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.24171482 = fieldWeight in 1654, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1654)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A classification is a theory of the structure of knowledge. From a discussion of the nature of truth, it is held that scientific knowledge is the only knowledge which can be regarded as true. The method of induction from empirical data is therefore applied to the construction of a classification. Items of knowledge are divided into uniquely definable terms, called isolates, and the relations between them, called operators. It is shown that only four basic operators exist, expressing appurtenance, equivalence, reaction and causation; using symbols for these operators, all subjects can be analysed in a linear form called an analet. With the addition of the permissible permutations of such analets, formed according to simple rules, alphabetical arrangement of the first terms provide a complete, logical subject index. Examples are given, and possible difficulties are considered. A classification can then be constructed by selection of deductive relations, arranged in hierarchical form. The nature of possible classifications is discussed. It is claimed that such an inductively constructed classification is the only true representation of the structure of knowledge, and that these principles provide a simple technique for accurately and fully indexing and classifying any given set of data, with complete flexibility

Type

a

0.0031642143 = product of:
  0.0063284286 = sum of:
    0.0063284286 = product of:
      0.012656857 = sum of:
        0.012656857 = weight(_text_:a in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012656857 = score(doc=2650,freq=28.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.23833402 = fieldWeight in 2650, product of:
              5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
                28.0 = termFreq=28.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2650)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper looks at the problems raised by maintaining an Area Table in a general scheme of classification. It examines the tools available to assist in producing a standardized listing and demonstrates how recent developments in the Universal Decimal Classification enable users to have a retrieval tool suitable for use in a networked environment which acts as both a gazetteer and a classification.

Content

1. Introduction The representation of place in classification schemes presents a number of problems. This paper examines some of them and presents different ways in which a solution may be sought. Firstly, what is meant by place? The simple answer is a geographical area, large or small. The reality is not so simple. Place, or Topos to Aristotle was more than just an area, it was a state of mind. But even staying an the less philosophical plane, the way in which a place can be expressed is infinitely variable. Toponymy is a well defined field of study, comparable with taxonomy in the biological sciences. It comprehends the proper name by which any geographical entity is known, and part of the world, feature of earth's surface, organic aggregate (reef, forest) an organizational unit (country, borough, diocese), limits of Earth (poles, hemispheres) parts of Earth (oceans, continents), lakes, mountain passes, capital cities or sea parts.

Type

a

0.0031324127 = product of:
  0.0062648254 = sum of:
    0.0062648254 = product of:
      0.012529651 = sum of:
        0.012529651 = weight(_text_:a in 1483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012529651 = score(doc=1483,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.23593865 = fieldWeight in 1483, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1483)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Facet analysis has been one of the foremost contenders as a design principle for information retrieval classifications, both manual and electronic in the last fifty years. Evidence is presented that the facet concept has a claim to be considered as a method of subdivision that is cognitively available to human beings, regardless of language, culture, or academic discipline. The possibility that faceting is a universal method of subdivision enhances the claim that facet analysis as an unusually useful design principle for information retrieval classifications in any field. This possibility needs further investigation in an age when information access across boundaries is both necessary and possible.

Source

Knowledge organization, information systems and other essays: Professor A. Neelameghan Festschrift. Ed. by K.S. Raghavan and K.N. Prasad

Type

a