Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.02713491 = product of:
  0.05426982 = sum of:
    0.05426982 = sum of:
      0.010589487 = weight(_text_:a in 632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.010589487 = score(doc=632,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 632, 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=632)
      0.043680333 = weight(_text_:22 in 632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043680333 = score(doc=632,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 632, 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=632)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper maps the concepts "space" and "dimensionality" in classifications, in particular in visualizations hereof, from a historical perspective. After a historical excursion in the domain of classification theory of what in mathematics is known as dimensionality reduction in representations of a single universe of knowledge, its potentiality will be explored for information retrieval and navigation in the multiverse of the World Wide Web.

Content

This paper is an adaptation and augmented version of a paper presented at the NASKO 2011 conference: Charles van den Heuvel. 2011. Multidimensional classifications: Past and future conceptualizations and visualizations. In Smiraglia, Richard P., ed. Proceedings from North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization, Vol. 3. Toronto, Canada, pp. 105-21. Vgl.: http://www.ergon-verlag.de/isko_ko/downloads/ko_39_2012_6_e.pdf.

Date

22. 2.2013 11:31:25

Type

a

0.0026202186 = product of:
  0.005240437 = sum of:
    0.005240437 = product of:
      0.010480874 = sum of:
        0.010480874 = weight(_text_:a in 571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010480874 = score(doc=571,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.19735932 = fieldWeight in 571, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=571)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

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

Source

Theory of subject analysis: a sourcebook. Ed.: L.M. Chan, et al

Type

a

0.0020714647 = product of:
  0.0041429293 = sum of:
    0.0041429293 = product of:
      0.008285859 = sum of:
        0.008285859 = weight(_text_:a in 5800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008285859 = score(doc=5800,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 5800, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5800)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Shiyali Ramamrita Ranganathan's theory of classification spans a number of works over a number of decades. And while he was devoted to solving many problems in the practice of librarianship, and is known as the father of library science in India (Garfield, 1984), his work in classification revolves around one central concern. His classification research addressed the problems that arose from introducing new ideas into a scheme for classification, while maintaining a meaningful hierarchical and systematically arranged order of classes. This is because hierarchical and systematically arranged classes are the defining characteristic of useful classification. To lose this order is to through the addition of new classes is to introduce confusion, if not chaos, and to move toward a useless classification - or at least one that requires complete revision. In the following chapter, I outline the stages, and the elements of those stages, in Ranganathan's thought on classification from 1926-1972, as well as posthumous work that continues his agenda. And while facets figure prominently in all of these stages; but for Ranganathan to achieve his goal, he must continually add to this central feature of his theory of classification. I will close this chapter with an outline of persistent problems that represent research fronts for the field. Chief among these are what to do about scheme change and the open question about the rigor of information modeling in light of semantic web developments.

Type

a

0.001913537 = product of:
  0.003827074 = sum of:
    0.003827074 = product of:
      0.007654148 = sum of:
        0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 4521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007654148 = score(doc=4521,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 4521, 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=4521)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

J. Kaiser (1868-1927) developed a system of subject indexing based on what he called "concretes" and "processes" to govern the form of subject headings and subdivisions. Although Kaiser applied his systematic indexing to specialized technical and business collections, his ideas are entirely applicable to all book collections and catalogs. Though largely ignored, Kaiser's system is of permanent interest in the study of the development of subject analysis

Type

a

0.001757696 = product of:
  0.003515392 = sum of:
    0.003515392 = product of:
      0.007030784 = sum of:
        0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 1158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007030784 = score(doc=1158,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 1158, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1158)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Acknowledging the importance of classification not only for library and information science but also for the study and mapping of the world phenomena, in this paper we revisit and systematize the main types of classifications and focus on the species of classification mainly drawing on the work of S. R. Ranganathan. We trace the evolution of library classification systems by their structures and modes of design of various shades of classification systems and make a comparative study of enumerative and faceted species of library classifications. The value of this paper is to have a picture of the whole spectrum of existing classifications, which may serve for the study of future developments and constructions of new systems. This paper updates previous works by Comaromi and Ranganathan and is also theoretically inspired by them.

Type

a

0.0011959607 = product of:
  0.0023919214 = sum of:
    0.0023919214 = product of:
      0.0047838427 = sum of:
        0.0047838427 = weight(_text_:a in 3849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0047838427 = score(doc=3849,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 3849, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3849)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Various fields, each with its own theories, techniques, and tools, are concerned with identifying and representing the conceptual structure of specific knowledge domains. This paper compares facet analysis, an analytic technique coming out of knowledge organization (especially as undertaken by members of the Classification Research Group (CRG)), with semantic frame analysis, an analytic technique coming out of lexical semantics (especially as undertaken by the developers of Frame-Net) The investigation addresses three questions: 1) how do CRG-style facet analysis and semantic frame analysis characterize the conceptual structures that they identify?; 2) how similar are the techniques they use?; and, 3) how similar are the conceptual structures they produce? Facet analysis is concerned with the logical categories underlying the terminology of an entire field, while semantic frame analysis is concerned with the participant-and-prop structure manifest in sentences about a type of situation or event. When their scope of application is similar, as, for example, in the areas of the performing arts or education, the resulting facets and semantic frame elements often bear striking resemblance, without being the same; facets are more often expressed as semantic types, while frame elements are more often expressed as roles.

Type

a