Search (37 results, page 1 of 2)

0.024384957 = product of:
  0.048769914 = sum of:
    0.048769914 = sum of:
      0.009516309 = weight(_text_:a in 2550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009516309 = score(doc=2550,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041389145 = queryNorm
          0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 2550, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2550)
      0.039253604 = weight(_text_:22 in 2550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.039253604 = score(doc=2550,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14493774 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041389145 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2550, 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=2550)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The paper takes a retrospective look at the work of Henry Evelyn Bliss, classificationist theorist and author of the Bibliographic Classification. Major features of his writings and philosophy are examined and evaluated for the originality of their contribution to the corpus of knowledge in the discipline. Reactions to Bliss's work are analysed, as is his influence on classification theory of the 20th century. Contemporary work on knowledge organization is seen to continue a number of strands from Bliss's original writings. His standing as a classificationist is compared with that of Ranganathan, with the conclusion that he is not given the credit he deserves.

Date

9. 2.1997 18:44:22

Type

a

0.019402392 = product of:
  0.038804784 = sum of:
    0.038804784 = sum of:
      0.005158836 = weight(_text_:a in 6392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.005158836 = score(doc=6392,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041389145 = queryNorm
          0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 6392, 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=6392)
      0.033645947 = weight(_text_:22 in 6392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.033645947 = score(doc=6392,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14493774 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041389145 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 6392, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6392)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The ways in which notation can be used to express the content of documents to which it relates are various. At the most superficial level notation can correspond to the hierarchical structure of the schedules or link to literal components. The notation of compound concepts can express the structure and composition of the compound, and systems exist in which symbols denote the functional roles of the constituent elements and the relationships between them. At the highest level notation can be used to mirror the actual structure of those entities which it represents, as in the case of mathematical systems or chemical compounds. Methods of displaying these structures are examined, and the practicality in a documentary context is questioned, with particular reference to recent revision work on the chemistry class of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification 2nd edition (BC2)

Date

10. 8.2001 13:22:14

Type

a

0.016822973 = product of:
  0.033645947 = sum of:
    0.033645947 = product of:
      0.06729189 = sum of:
        0.06729189 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06729189 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14493774 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6048, 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=6048)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:41:14

0.003159129 = product of:
  0.006318258 = sum of:
    0.006318258 = product of:
      0.012636516 = sum of:
        0.012636516 = weight(_text_:a in 4607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012636516 = score(doc=4607,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.26478532 = fieldWeight in 4607, 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=4607)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.003159129 = product of:
  0.006318258 = sum of:
    0.006318258 = product of:
      0.012636516 = sum of:
        0.012636516 = weight(_text_:a in 6410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012636516 = score(doc=6410,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.26478532 = fieldWeight in 6410, 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=6410)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0030093212 = product of:
  0.0060186423 = sum of:
    0.0060186423 = product of:
      0.012037285 = sum of:
        0.012037285 = weight(_text_:a in 353) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012037285 = score(doc=353,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.25222903 = fieldWeight in 353, 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=353)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0030093212 = product of:
  0.0060186423 = sum of:
    0.0060186423 = product of:
      0.012037285 = sum of:
        0.012037285 = weight(_text_:a in 3784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012037285 = score(doc=3784,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.25222903 = fieldWeight in 3784, 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=3784)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.002735886 = product of:
  0.005471772 = sum of:
    0.005471772 = product of:
      0.010943544 = sum of:
        0.010943544 = weight(_text_:a in 1857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010943544 = score(doc=1857,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.22931081 = fieldWeight in 1857, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1857)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Facet analysis is an established methodology for building classifications and subject indexing systems, but has been less rigorously applied to thesauri. The process of creating a compatible thesaurus from the schedules of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification 2nd edition highlights the ways in which the conceptual relationships in a subject field are handled in the two types of retrieval languages. An underlying uniformity of theory is established, and the way in which software can manage the relationships is discussed. The manner of displaying verbal expressions of concepts (vocabulary control) is also considered, but is found to be less well controlled in the classification than in the thesaurus. Nevertheless, there is good reason to think that facet analysis provides a sound basis for structuring a variety of knowledge organization tools.

Content

Beitrag eines Themenheftes "Facets: a fruitful notion in many domains".

Type

a

0.0027189455 = product of:
  0.005437891 = sum of:
    0.005437891 = product of:
      0.010875782 = sum of:
        0.010875782 = weight(_text_:a in 537) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010875782 = score(doc=537,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.22789092 = fieldWeight in 537, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=537)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The presentation will examine the potential of facet analysis as a basis for determining status and relationships of concepts in subject based tools using a controlled vocabulary, and the extent to which it can be used as a general theory of knowledge organization as opposed to a methodology for structuring classifications only.

0.0026326077 = product of:
  0.0052652154 = sum of:
    0.0052652154 = product of:
      0.010530431 = sum of:
        0.010530431 = weight(_text_:a in 593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010530431 = score(doc=593,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.22065444 = fieldWeight in 593, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=593)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to identify the most important factors and features in the evolution of thesauri and ontologies through a dialectic model. This model relies on a dialectic process or idea which could be discovered via a dialectic method. This method has focused on identifying the logical relationship between a beginning proposition, or an idea called a thesis, a negation of that idea called the antithesis, and the result of the conflict between the two ideas, called a synthesis. During the creation of knowl­edge organization systems (KOSs), the identification of logical relations between different ideas has been made possible through the consideration and use of the most influential methods and tools such as dictionaries, Roget's Thesaurus, thesaurus, micro-, macro- and metathesauri, ontology, lower, middle and upper level ontologies. The analysis process has adapted a historical methodology, more specifically a dialectic method and documentary method as the reasoning process. This supports our arguments and synthesizes a method for the analysis of research results. Confirmed by the research results, the principle of unity has shown to be the most important factor in the development and evolution of the structure of knowl­edge organization systems and their types. There are various types of unity when considering the analysis of logical relations. These include the principle of unity of alphabetical order, unity of science, semantic unity, structural unity and conceptual unity. The results have clearly demonstrated a movement from plurality to unity in the assembling of the complex structure of knowl­edge organization systems to increase information and knowl­edge storage and retrieval performance.

Type

a

0.002579418 = product of:
  0.005158836 = sum of:
    0.005158836 = product of:
      0.010317672 = sum of:
        0.010317672 = weight(_text_:a in 5994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010317672 = score(doc=5994,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 5994, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5994)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We examine the way in which religion is managed in the major library classification schemes and in archival practice and how and why bias and misrepresentation occur. Broad definitions of what is meant by diversity and religious pluralism and why it is a cause for concern precede a discussion of the standard model of interreligious attitudes (exclusivism/inclusivism/pluralism) with particular reference to the philosophy of John Hick. This model is used as a lens through which to evaluate knowledge organization systems (KOSs) for evidence of comparable theoretical positions and to suggest a possible typology of religious KOSs. Archival and library practice are considered, and, despite their very different approaches, found to have some similarities in the way in which traditional societal structures have affected bias and misrepresentation of religious beliefs. There is, nevertheless, evidence of a general move towards a more pluralistic attitude to different faiths.

Type

a

0.00252053 = product of:
  0.00504106 = sum of:
    0.00504106 = product of:
      0.01008212 = sum of:
        0.01008212 = weight(_text_:a in 4065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01008212 = score(doc=4065,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.21126054 = fieldWeight in 4065, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4065)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Recent revision of UDC classes has aimed at implementing a more faceted approach. Many compound classes have been removed from the main tables, and more radical revisions of classes (particularly those for Medicine and Religion) have introduced a rigorous analysis, a clearer sense of citation order, and building of compound classes according to a more logical system syntax. The faceted approach provides a means of formalizing the relationships in the classification and making them explicit for machine recognition. In the Bliss Bibliographic Classification (BC2) (which has been a source for both UDC classes mentioned above), terminologies are encoded for automatic generation of hierarchical and associative relationships. Nevertheless, difficulties are encountered in vocabulary control, and a similar phenomenon is observed in UDC. Current work has revealed differences in the vocabulary of humanities and science, notably the way in which terms in the humanities should be handled when these are semantically complex. Achieving a balance between rigour in the structure of the classification and the complexity of natural language expression remains partially unresolved at present, but provides a fertile field for further research.

Content

Teil von: Papers from Classification at a Crossroads: Multiple Directions to Usability: International UDC Seminar 2009-Part 2

Type

a

0.00252053 = product of:
  0.00504106 = sum of:
    0.00504106 = product of:
      0.01008212 = sum of:
        0.01008212 = weight(_text_:a in 4826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01008212 = score(doc=4826,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.21126054 = fieldWeight in 4826, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4826)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Facet analysis is proposed as a general theory of knowledge organization, with an associated methodology that may be applied to the development of terminology tools in a variety of contexts and formats. Faceted classifications originated as a means of representing complexity in semantic content that facilitates logical organization and effective retrieval in a physical environment. This is achieved through meticulous analysis of concepts, their structural and functional status (based on fundamental categories), and their inter-relationships. These features provide an excellent basis for the general conceptual modelling of domains, and for the generation of KOS other than systematic classifications. This is demonstrated by the adoption of a faceted approach to many web search and visualization tools, and by the emergence of a facet based methodology for the construction of thesauri. Current work on the Bliss Bibliographic Classification (Second Edition) is investigating the ways in which the full complexity of faceted structures may be represented through encoded data, capable of generating intellectually and mechanically compatible forms of indexing tools from a single source. It is suggested that a number of research questions relating to the Semantic Web could be tackled through the medium of facet analysis.

Source

Classification and ontology: formal approaches and access to knowledge: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar, 19-20 September 2011, The Hague, The Netherlands. Eds.: A. Slavic u. E. Civallero

Type

a

0.0024318986 = product of:
  0.004863797 = sum of:
    0.004863797 = product of:
      0.009727594 = sum of:
        0.009727594 = weight(_text_:a in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009727594 = score(doc=6089,freq=32.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 6089, product of:
              5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
                32.0 = termFreq=32.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6089)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The genesis of the Group: In 1948, as part of the post-war renewal of library services in the United Kingdom, the Royal Society organized a Conference on Scientific Information.' What, at the time, must have seemed a minute part of the grand plan, but was later to have a transforming effect on the theory of knowledge organization throughout the remainder of the century, was the setting up of a standing committee of a small group of specialists to investigate the organization and retrieval of scientific information. In 1950, the secretary of that committee, J.D. Bernal, suggested that it might be appropriate to ask a group of librarians to do a study of the problem. After a couple of years of informal discussion it was agreed, in February 1952, to form a Classification Research Group - the CRG as it has become known to subsequent generations. The Group published a brief corporate statement of its views in the Library Association Record in June 1953 and submitted a memorandum to the Library Association Research Committee in May 1955, entitled "The need for a faceted classification as the basis of all methods of information retrieval". This memorandum was published in the proceedings of what has become known as the "Dorking Conference" in 1957. Of the original fifteen members, four still belong to the Group, three of whom are in regular attendance: Eric Coates, Douglas Foskett and Jack Mills. Brian Vickery ceased attending regularly in the 1960s but has retained his interest in their doings: he was present at the 150th celebratory meeting in 1984 and played an active part in the "Dorking revisited" conference held in 1997. The stated aim of the Group was 'To review the basic principles of bibliographic classification, unhampered by allegiance to any particular published scheme' and it can truly be stated that the work of its members has had a fundamental influence on the teaching and practice of information retrieval. It is paradoxical that this collection of people has exerted such a strong theoretical sway because their aims were from the outset and remain essentially practical. This fact is sometimes overlooked in the literature on knowledge organization: there is a tendency to get carried away, and for researchers of today to concentrate so hard on what might be that they overlook what is needed, useful and practical - the entire objective of any retrieval system.

Type

a

0.0024128247 = product of:
  0.0048256493 = sum of:
    0.0048256493 = product of:
      0.009651299 = sum of:
        0.009651299 = weight(_text_:a in 2631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009651299 = score(doc=2631,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 2631, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2631)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The paper examines the way in which classification schemes can be applied to the organization of digital resources. The case is argued for the particular suitability of schemes based an faceted principles for the organization of complex digital objects. Details are given of a co-operative project between the School of Library Archive & Information Studies, University College London, and the United Kingdom Higher Education gateways Arts and Humanities Data Service and Humbul, in which a faceted knowledge structure is being developed for the indexing and display of digital materials within a new combined humanities portal.

Type

a

0.0022748327 = product of:
  0.0045496654 = sum of:
    0.0045496654 = product of:
      0.009099331 = sum of:
        0.009099331 = weight(_text_:a in 2875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009099331 = score(doc=2875,freq=28.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.19066721 = fieldWeight in 2875, product of:
              5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
                28.0 = termFreq=28.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2875)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to provide an overview of principles and procedures involved in creating a faceted classification scheme for use in resource discovery in an online environment. Design/methodology/approach - Facet analysis provides an established rigorous methodology for the conceptual organization of a subject field, and the structuring of an associated classification or controlled vocabulary. This paper explains how that methodology was applied to the humanities in the FATKS project, where the objective was to explore the potential of facet analytical theory for creating a controlled vocabulary for the humanities, and to establish the requirements of a faceted classification appropriate to an online environment. A detailed faceted vocabulary was developed for two areas of the humanities within a broader facet framework for the whole of knowledge. Research issues included how to create a data model which made the faceted structure explicit and machine-readable and provided for its further development and use. Findings - In order to support easy facet combination in indexing, and facet searching and browsing on the interface, faceted classification requires a formalized data structure and an appropriate tool for its management. The conceptual framework of a faceted system proper can be applied satisfactorily to humanities, and fully integrated within a vocabulary management system. Research limitations/implications - The procedures described in this paper are concerned only with the structuring of the classification, and do not extend to indexing, retrieval and application issues. Practical implications - Many stakeholders in the domain of resource discovery consider developing their own classification system and supporting tools. The methods described in this paper may clarify the process of building a faceted classification and may provide some useful ideas with respect to the vocabulary maintenance tool. Originality/value - As far as the authors are aware there is no comparable research in this area.

Type

a

0.0022338415 = product of:
  0.004467683 = sum of:
    0.004467683 = product of:
      0.008935366 = sum of:
        0.008935366 = weight(_text_:a in 3532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008935366 = score(doc=3532,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 3532, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3532)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Bliss Bibliographic Classification is the only example of a fully faceted general classification scheme in the Western world. Although it is the object of much interest as a model for other tools it suffers from the lack of a web presence, and remedying this is an immediate objective for its editors. Understanding how this might be done presents some challenges, as the scheme is semantically very rich and complex in the range and nature of the relationships it contains. The automatic management of these is already in place using local software, but exporting this to a common data format needs careful thought and planning. Various encoding schemes, both for traditional classifications, and for digital materials, represent variously: the concepts; their functional roles; and the relationships between them. Integrating these aspects in a coherent and interchangeable manner appears to be achievable, but the most appropriate format is as yet unclear.

Type

a

0.0022338415 = product of:
  0.004467683 = sum of:
    0.004467683 = product of:
      0.008935366 = sum of:
        0.008935366 = weight(_text_:a in 5992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008935366 = score(doc=5992,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 5992, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5992)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The paper examines the development of facet analysis as a methodology and the role it plays in building classifications and other knowledge-organization tools. The use of categorical analysis in areas other than library and information science is also considered. The suitability of the faceted approach for humanities documentation is explored through a critical description of the FATKS (Facet Analytical Theory in Managing Knowledge Structure for Humanities) project carried out at University College London. This research focused on building a conceptual model for the subject of religion together with a relational database and search-and-browse interfaces that would support some degree of automatic classification. The paper concludes with a discussion of the differences between the conceptual model and the vocabulary used to populate it, and how, in the case of religion, the choice of terminology can create an apparent bias in the system.

Type

a

0.002149515 = product of:
  0.00429903 = sum of:
    0.00429903 = product of:
      0.00859806 = sum of:
        0.00859806 = weight(_text_:a in 2476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00859806 = score(doc=2476,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 2476, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2476)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Basic skills of classification and subject indexing have been little taught in British library schools since automation was introduced into libraries. However, development of the Internet as a major medium of publication has stretched the capability of search engines to cope with retrieval. Consequently, there has been interest in applying existing systems of knowledge organization to electronic resources. Unfortunately, the classification systems have been adopted without a full understanding of modern classification principles. Analytico-synthetic schemes have been used crudely, as in the case of the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC). The fully faceted Bliss Bibliographical Classification, 2nd edition (BC2) with its potential as a tool for electronic resource retrieval is virtually unknown outside academic libraries

Content

A short discussion of using classification systems to organize the web, one of many such. The authors are both involved with BC2 and naturally think it is the best system for organizing information online. They list reasons why faceted classifications are best (e.g. no theoretical limits to specificity or exhaustivity; easier to handle complex subjects; flexible enough to accommodate different user needs) and take a brief look at how BC2 works. They conclude with a discussion of how and why it should be applied to online resources, and a plea for recognition of the importance of classification and subject analysis skills, even when full-text searching is available and databases respond instantly.

Type

a

0.0021279112 = product of:
  0.0042558224 = sum of:
    0.0042558224 = product of:
      0.008511645 = sum of:
        0.008511645 = weight(_text_:a in 6145) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008511645 = score(doc=6145,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.04772363 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041389145 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 6145, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6145)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a