Search (247 results, page 1 of 13)

  • × theme_ss:"Klassifikationstheorie: Elemente / Struktur"
  1. Maniez, J.: ¬Des classifications aux thesaurus : du bon usage des facettes (1999) 0.04
    0.04149951 = product of:
      0.08299902 = sum of:
        0.08299902 = sum of:
          0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 6404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.008118451 = score(doc=6404,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 6404, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6404)
          0.07488057 = weight(_text_:22 in 6404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.07488057 = score(doc=6404,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6404, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6404)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    1. 8.1996 22:01:00
    Type
    a
  2. Maniez, J.: ¬Du bon usage des facettes : des classifications aux thésaurus (1999) 0.04
    0.04149951 = product of:
      0.08299902 = sum of:
        0.08299902 = sum of:
          0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 3773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.008118451 = score(doc=3773,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 3773, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3773)
          0.07488057 = weight(_text_:22 in 3773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.07488057 = score(doc=3773,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3773, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3773)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    1. 8.1996 22:01:00
    Type
    a
  3. Foskett, D.J.: Systems theory and its relevance to documentary classification (2017) 0.04
    0.04149951 = product of:
      0.08299902 = sum of:
        0.08299902 = sum of:
          0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 3176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.008118451 = score(doc=3176,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 3176, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3176)
          0.07488057 = weight(_text_:22 in 3176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.07488057 = score(doc=3176,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3176, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3176)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    6. 5.2017 18:46:22
    Type
    a
  4. Belayche, C.: ¬A propos de la classification de Dewey (1997) 0.03
    0.02964738 = product of:
      0.05929476 = sum of:
        0.05929476 = sum of:
          0.009374379 = weight(_text_:a in 1171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.009374379 = score(doc=1171,freq=6.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 1171, product of:
                2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                  6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1171)
          0.04992038 = weight(_text_:22 in 1171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.04992038 = score(doc=1171,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1171, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1171)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    All classifications are based on ideologies and Dewey is marked by its author's origins in 19th century North America. Subsequent revisions indicate changed ways of understanding the world. Section 157 (psycho-pathology) is now included with 616.89 (mental troubles), reflecting the move to a genetic-based approach. Table 5 (racial, ethnic and national groups) is however unchanged, despite changing views on such categorisation
    Source
    Bulletin d'informations de l'Association des Bibliothecaires Francais. 1997, no.175, S.22-23
    Type
    a
  5. Connaway, L.S.; Sievert, M.C.: Comparison of three classification systems for information on health insurance (1996) 0.03
    0.028787265 = product of:
      0.05757453 = sum of:
        0.05757453 = sum of:
          0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.007654148 = score(doc=7242,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 7242, product of:
                2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                  4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7242)
          0.04992038 = weight(_text_:22 in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.04992038 = score(doc=7242,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7242, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7242)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Reports results of a comparative study of 3 classification schemes: LCC, DDC and NLM Classification to determine their effectiveness in classifying materials on health insurance. Examined 2 hypotheses: that there would be no differences in the scatter of the 3 classification schemes; and that there would be overlap between all 3 schemes but no difference in the classes into which the subject was placed. There was subject scatter in all 3 classification schemes and litlle overlap between the 3 systems
    Date
    22. 4.1997 21:10:19
    Type
    a
  6. Lin, W.-Y.C.: ¬The concept and applications of faceted classifications (2006) 0.03
    0.02766634 = product of:
      0.05533268 = sum of:
        0.05533268 = sum of:
          0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.0054123 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 5083, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5083)
          0.04992038 = weight(_text_:22 in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.04992038 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5083, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5083)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    27. 5.2007 22:19:35
    Type
    a
  7. Lorenz, B.: Zur Theorie und Terminologie der bibliothekarischen Klassifikation (2018) 0.03
    0.02766634 = product of:
      0.05533268 = sum of:
        0.05533268 = sum of:
          0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 4339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.0054123 = score(doc=4339,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 4339, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4339)
          0.04992038 = weight(_text_:22 in 4339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.04992038 = score(doc=4339,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4339, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4339)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Pages
    S.1-22
    Type
    a
  8. Olson, H.A.: Sameness and difference : a cultural foundation of classification (2001) 0.03
    0.025941458 = product of:
      0.051882915 = sum of:
        0.051882915 = sum of:
          0.008202582 = weight(_text_:a in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.008202582 = score(doc=166,freq=6.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 166, product of:
                2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                  6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=166)
          0.043680333 = weight(_text_:22 in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.043680333 = score(doc=166,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 166, 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=166)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The idea of sameness is used to gather material in classifications. However, it is also used to separate what is different. Sameness and difference as guiding principles of classification seem obvious but are actually fundamental characteristics specifically related to Western culture. Sameness is not a singular factor, but has the potential to represent multiple characteristics or facets. This article explores the ramifications of which characteristics are used to define classifications and in what order. It explains the primacy of division by discipline, its origins in Western philosophy, and the cultural specificity that results. The Dewey Decimal Classification is used as an example throughout.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Type
    a
  9. Gnoli, C.: Classifying phenomena : part 4: themes and rhemes (2018) 0.03
    0.025451606 = product of:
      0.050903212 = sum of:
        0.050903212 = sum of:
          0.013462927 = weight(_text_:a in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.013462927 = score(doc=4152,freq=22.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.25351265 = fieldWeight in 4152, product of:
                4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                  22.0 = termFreq=22.0
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4152)
          0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.037440285 = score(doc=4152,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4152, 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=4152)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This is the fourth in a series of papers on classification based on phenomena instead of disciplines. Together with types, levels and facets that have been discussed in the previous parts, themes and rhemes are further structural components of such a classification. In a statement or in a longer document, a base theme and several particular themes can be identified. Base theme should be cited first in a classmark, followed by particular themes, each with its own facets. In some cases, rhemes can also be expressed, that is new information provided about a theme, converting an abstract statement ("wolves, affected by cervids") into a claim that some thing actually occurs ("wolves are affected by cervids"). In the Integrative Levels Classification rhemes can be expressed by special deictic classes, including those for actual specimens, anaphoras, unknown values, conjunctions and spans, whole universe, anthropocentric favoured classes, and favoured host classes. These features, together with rules for pronounciation, make a classification of phenomena a true language, that may be suitable for many uses.
    Date
    17. 2.2018 18:22:25
    Type
    a
  10. Winske, E.: ¬The development and structure of an urban, regional, and local documents classification scheme (1996) 0.03
    0.025188856 = product of:
      0.05037771 = sum of:
        0.05037771 = sum of:
          0.00669738 = weight(_text_:a in 7241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.00669738 = score(doc=7241,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 7241, product of:
                2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                  4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7241)
          0.043680333 = weight(_text_:22 in 7241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.043680333 = score(doc=7241,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 7241, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7241)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Footnote
    Paper presented at conference on 'Local documents, a new classification scheme' at the Research Caucus of the Florida Library Association Annual Conference, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 22 Apr 95
    Type
    a
  11. Kwasnik, B.H.: ¬The role of classification in knowledge representation (1999) 0.02
    0.024460753 = product of:
      0.048921507 = sum of:
        0.048921507 = sum of:
          0.011481222 = weight(_text_:a in 2464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.011481222 = score(doc=2464,freq=16.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 2464, 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=2464)
          0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 2464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.037440285 = score(doc=2464,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2464, 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=2464)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    A fascinating, broad-ranging article about classification, knowledge, and how they relate. Hierarchies, trees, paradigms (a two-dimensional classification that can look something like a spreadsheet), and facets are covered, with descriptions of how they work and how they can be used for knowledge discovery and creation. Kwasnick outlines how to make a faceted classification: choose facets, develop facets, analyze entities using the facets, and make a citation order. Facets are useful for many reasons: they do not require complete knowledge of the entire body of material; they are hospitable, flexible, and expressive; they do not require a rigid background theory; they can mix theoretical structures and models; and they allow users to view things from many perspectives. Facets do have faults: it can be hard to pick the right ones; it is hard to show relations between them; and it is difficult to visualize them. The coverage of the other methods is equally thorough and there is much to consider for anyone putting a classification on the web.
    Source
    Library trends. 48(1999) no.1, S.22-47
    Type
    a
  12. Hjoerland, B.: Theories of knowledge organization - theories of knowledge (2017) 0.02
    0.024208048 = product of:
      0.048416097 = sum of:
        0.048416097 = sum of:
          0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.0047357627 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
          0.043680333 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.043680333 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3494, 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=3494)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Pages
    S.22-36
    Type
    a
  13. Howarth, L.C.; Jansen, E.H.: Towards a typology of warrant for 21st century knowledge organization systems (2014) 0.02
    0.023258494 = product of:
      0.04651699 = sum of:
        0.04651699 = sum of:
          0.009076704 = weight(_text_:a in 1425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.009076704 = score(doc=1425,freq=10.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 1425, product of:
                3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                  10.0 = termFreq=10.0
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1425)
          0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 1425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.037440285 = score(doc=1425,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1425, 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=1425)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This paper returns to Beghtol's (1986) insightful typology of warrant to consider an empirical example of a traditional top-down hierarchical classification system as it continues to evolve in the early 21st century. Our examination considers there may be multiple warrants identified among the processes of design and the relationships to users of the National Occupational Classification (NOC), the standard occupational classification system published in Canada. We argue that this shift in semantic warrant signals a transition for traditional knowledge organization systems, and that warrant continues to be a relevant analytical concept and organizing principle, both within and beyond the domain of bibliographic control.
    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
  14. Vukadin, A.; Slavic, A.: Challenges of facet analysis and concept placement in Universal Classifications : the example of architecture in UDC (2014) 0.02
    0.023258494 = product of:
      0.04651699 = sum of:
        0.04651699 = sum of:
          0.009076704 = weight(_text_:a in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.009076704 = score(doc=1428,freq=10.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 1428, product of:
                3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                  10.0 = termFreq=10.0
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1428)
          0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.037440285 = score(doc=1428,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1428, 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=1428)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The paper discusses the challenges of faceted vocabulary organization in universal classifications which treat the universe of knowledge as a coherent whole and in which the concepts and subjects in different disciplines are shared, related and combined. The authors illustrate the challenges of the facet analytical approach using, as an example, the revision of class 72 in UDC. The paper reports on the research undertaken in 2013 as preparation for the revision. This consisted of analysis of concept organization in the UDC schedules in comparison with the Art & Architecture Thesaurus and class W of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification. The paper illustrates how such research can contribute to a better understanding of the field and may lead to improvements in the facet structure of this segment of the UDC vocabulary.
    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
  15. Slavic, A.: On the nature and typology of documentary classifications and their use in a networked environment (2007) 0.02
    0.022779368 = product of:
      0.045558736 = sum of:
        0.045558736 = sum of:
          0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.008118451 = score(doc=780,freq=8.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 780, product of:
                2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                  8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=780)
          0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.037440285 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 780, 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=780)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Networked orientated standards for vocabulary publishing and exchange and proposals for terminological services and terminology registries will improve sharing and use of all knowledge organization systems in the networked information environment. This means that documentary classifications may also become more applicable for use outside their original domain of application. The paper summarises some characteristics common to documentary classifications and explains some terminological, functional and implementation aspects. The original purpose behind each classification scheme determines the functions that the vocabulary is designed to facilitate. These functions influence the structure, semantics and syntax, scheme coverage and format in which classification data are published and made available. The author suggests that attention should be paid to the differences between documentary classifications as these may determine their suitability for a certain purpose and may impose different requirements with respect to their use online. As we speak, many classifications are being created for knowledge organization and it may be important to promote expertise from the bibliographic domain with respect to building and using classification systems.
    Date
    22.12.2007 17:22:31
    Type
    a
  16. Jacob, E.K.: Proposal for a classification of classifications built on Beghtol's distinction between "Naïve Classification" and "Professional Classification" (2010) 0.02
    0.022779368 = product of:
      0.045558736 = sum of:
        0.045558736 = sum of:
          0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.008118451 = score(doc=2945,freq=8.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 2945, product of:
                2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                  8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2945)
          0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.037440285 = score(doc=2945,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2945, 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=2945)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Argues that Beghtol's (2003) use of the terms "naive classification" and "professional classification" is valid because they are nominal definitions and that the distinction between these two types of classification points up the need for researchers in knowledge organization to broaden their scope beyond traditional classification systems intended for information retrieval. Argues that work by Beghtol (2003), Kwasnik (1999) and Bailey (1994) offer direction for the development of a classification of classifications based on the pragmatic dimensions of extant classification systems. Bezugnahme auf: Beghtol, C.: Naïve classification systems and the global information society. In: Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine. Würzburg: Ergon Verlag 2004. S.19-22. (Advances in knowledge organization; vol.9)
    Content
    Beitrag in einem Special issue: A Festschrift for Clare Beghtol
    Type
    a
  17. Molholt, P.: Qualities of classification schemes for the Information Superhighway (1995) 0.02
    0.02067415 = product of:
      0.0413483 = sum of:
        0.0413483 = sum of:
          0.010148063 = weight(_text_:a in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.010148063 = score(doc=5562,freq=18.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.19109234 = fieldWeight in 5562, product of:
                4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                  18.0 = termFreq=18.0
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5562)
          0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.03120024 = score(doc=5562,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5562, 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=5562)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    For my segment of this program I'd like to focus on some basic qualities of classification schemes. These qualities are critical to our ability to truly organize knowledge for access. As I see it, there are at least five qualities of note. The first one of these properties that I want to talk about is "authoritative." By this I mean standardized, but I mean more than standardized with a built in consensus-building process. A classification scheme constructed by a collaborative, consensus-building process carries the approval, and the authority, of the discipline groups that contribute to it and that it affects... The next property of classification systems is "expandable," living, responsive, with a clear locus of responsibility for its continuous upkeep. The worst thing you can do with a thesaurus, or a classification scheme, is to finish it. You can't ever finish it because it reflects ongoing intellectual activity... The third property is "intuitive." That is, the system has to be approachable, it has to be transparent, or at least capable of being transparent. It has to have an underlying logic that supports the classification scheme but doesn't dominate it... The fourth property is "organized and logical." I advocate very strongly, and agree with Lois Chan, that classification must be based on a rule-based structure, on somebody's world-view of the syndetic structure... The fifth property is "universal" by which I mean the classification scheme needs be useable by any specific system or application, and be available as a language for multiple purposes.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 21(1995) no.2, S.19-22
    Type
    a
  18. Green, R.: Relational aspects of subject authority control : the contributions of classificatory structure (2015) 0.02
    0.020383961 = product of:
      0.040767923 = sum of:
        0.040767923 = sum of:
          0.009567685 = weight(_text_:a in 2282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.009567685 = score(doc=2282,freq=16.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 2282, 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=2282)
          0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 2282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.03120024 = score(doc=2282,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2282, 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=2282)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The structure of a classification system contributes in a variety of ways to representing semantic relationships between its topics in the context of subject authority control. We explore this claim using the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system as a case study. The DDC links its classes into a notational hierarchy, supplemented by a network of relationships between topics, expressed in class descriptions and in the Relative Index (RI). Topics/subjects are expressed both by the natural language text of the caption and notes (including Manual notes) in a class description and by the controlled vocabulary of the RI's alphabetic index, which shows where topics are treated in the classificatory structure. The expression of relationships between topics depends on paradigmatic and syntagmatic relationships between natural language terms in captions, notes, and RI terms; on the meaning of specific note types; and on references recorded between RI terms. The specific means used in the DDC for capturing hierarchical (including disciplinary), equivalence and associative relationships are surveyed.
    Date
    8.11.2015 21:27:22
    Source
    Classification and authority control: expanding resource discovery: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar 2015, 29-30 October 2015, Lisbon, Portugal. Eds.: Slavic, A. u. M.I. Cordeiro
    Type
    a
  19. Zhang, J.; Zeng, M.L.: ¬A new similarity measure for subject hierarchical structures (2014) 0.02
    0.020074995 = product of:
      0.04014999 = sum of:
        0.04014999 = sum of:
          0.00894975 = weight(_text_:a in 1778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.00894975 = score(doc=1778,freq=14.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 1778, product of:
                3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                  14.0 = termFreq=14.0
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1778)
          0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 1778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.03120024 = score(doc=1778,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1778, 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=1778)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to introduce a new similarity method to gauge the differences between two subject hierarchical structures. Design/methodology/approach - In the proposed similarity measure, nodes on two hierarchical structures are projected onto a two-dimensional space, respectively, and both structural similarity and subject similarity of nodes are considered in the similarity between the two hierarchical structures. The extent to which the structural similarity impacts on the similarity can be controlled by adjusting a parameter. An experiment was conducted to evaluate soundness of the measure. Eight experts whose research interests were information retrieval and information organization participated in the study. Results from the new measure were compared with results from the experts. Findings - The evaluation shows strong correlations between the results from the new method and the results from the experts. It suggests that the similarity method achieved satisfactory results. Practical implications - Hierarchical structures that are found in subject directories, taxonomies, classification systems, and other classificatory structures play an extremely important role in information organization and information representation. Measuring the similarity between two subject hierarchical structures allows an accurate overarching understanding of the degree to which the two hierarchical structures are similar. Originality/value - Both structural similarity and subject similarity of nodes were considered in the proposed similarity method, and the extent to which the structural similarity impacts on the similarity can be adjusted. In addition, a new evaluation method for a hierarchical structure similarity was presented.
    Date
    8. 4.2015 16:22:13
    Type
    a
  20. Dousa, T.M.: Categories and the architectonics of system in Julius Otto Kaiser's method of systematic indexing (2014) 0.02
    0.018982807 = product of:
      0.037965614 = sum of:
        0.037965614 = sum of:
          0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.006765375 = score(doc=1418,freq=8.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 1418, product of:
                2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                  8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1418)
          0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.03120024 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1418, 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=1418)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Categories, or concepts of high generality representing the most basic kinds of entities in the world, have long been understood to be a fundamental element in the construction of knowledge organization systems (KOSs), particularly faceted ones. Commentators on facet analysis have tended to foreground the role of categories in the structuring of controlled vocabularies and the construction of compound index terms, and the implications of this for subject representation and information retrieval. Less attention has been paid to the variety of ways in which categories can shape the overall architectonic framework of a KOS. This case study explores the range of functions that categories took in structuring various aspects of an early analytico-synthetic KOS, Julius Otto Kaiser's method of Systematic Indexing (SI). Within SI, categories not only functioned as mechanisms to partition an index vocabulary into smaller groupings of terms and as elements in the construction of compound index terms but also served as means of defining the units of indexing, or index items, incorporated into an index; determining the organization of card index files and the articulation of the guide card system serving as a navigational aids thereto; and setting structural constraints to the establishment of cross-references between terms. In all these ways, Kaiser's system of categories contributed to the general systematicity of SI.
    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

Authors

Languages

Types

  • a 221
  • m 20
  • el 10
  • s 4
  • b 1
  • More… Less…