Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0437985 = product of:
  0.087597 = sum of:
    0.087597 = product of:
      0.175194 = sum of:
        0.175194 = weight(_text_:s.r in 2217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.175194 = score(doc=2217,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.2873241 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5039306 = idf(docFreq=179, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044176992 = queryNorm
            0.6097435 = fieldWeight in 2217, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              6.5039306 = idf(docFreq=179, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2217)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Undiscovered public knowledge is a relatively unstudied phenomenon, and the few extended examples that have been published are intradisciplinary. This paper presents the concept of 'facet' as an example of interdisciplinary undiscovered public knowledge. 'Facets' were central to the bibliographic classification theory of S.R. Ranganathan in India and to the behavioural research of L. Guttman in Israel. The term had the same meaning in both fields, and the concept was developed and exploited at about the same time in both, but two separate, unconnected literatures grew up around the term and its associated concepts. This paper examines the origins and parallel uses of the concept and the term in both fields as a case study of interdisciplinary knowledge that could have been, but was apparantly not, doscovered any time between the aerly 1950s and the present using simple, readily available information retrieval techniques

0.025808511 = product of:
  0.051617023 = sum of:
    0.051617023 = product of:
      0.103234045 = sum of:
        0.103234045 = weight(_text_:s.r in 1856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.103234045 = score(doc=1856,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2873241 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.5039306 = idf(docFreq=179, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044176992 = queryNorm
            0.35929477 = fieldWeight in 1856, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.5039306 = idf(docFreq=179, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1856)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

During the twentieth century, bibliographic classification theory underwent a structural revolution. The first modern bibliographic classifications were top-down systems that started at the universe of knowledge and subdivided that universe downward to minute subclasses. After the invention of faceted classification by S.R. Ranganathan, the ideal was to build bottom-up classifications that started with the universe of concepts and built upward to larger and larger faceted classes. This ideal has not been achieved, and the two kinds of classification systems are not mutually exclusive. This paper examines the process by which this structural revolution was accomplished by looking at the spread of facet theory after 1924 when Ranganathan attended the School of Librarianship, London, through selected classification textbooks that were published after that date. To this end, the paper examines the role of W.C.B. Sayers as a teacher and author of three editions of The Manual of Classification for Librarians and Bibliographers. Sayers influenced both Ranganathan and the various members of the Classification Research Group (CRG) who were his students. Further, the paper contrasts the methods of evaluating classification systems that arose between Sayers's Canons of Classification in 1915- 1916 and J. Mills's A Modern Outline of Library Classification in 1960 in order to demonstrate the speed with which one kind of classificatory structure was overtaken by another.

0.0119707445 = product of:
  0.023941489 = sum of:
    0.023941489 = product of:
      0.047882978 = sum of:
        0.047882978 = weight(_text_:22 in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047882978 = score(doc=5830,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1547003 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044176992 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5830, 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=5830)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

5. 8.2006 13:22:08

0.0074817156 = product of:
  0.014963431 = sum of:
    0.014963431 = product of:
      0.029926863 = sum of:
        0.029926863 = weight(_text_:22 in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029926863 = score(doc=3483,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1547003 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044176992 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Pages

S.19-22