Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0018909799 = product of:
  0.0037819599 = sum of:
    0.0037819599 = product of:
      0.0075639198 = sum of:
        0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 4850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0075639198 = score(doc=4850,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 4850, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4850)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Faceted classification is based on the core ideas that there are kinds or categories of concepts, and that compound, or non-elemental, concepts, which are ubiquitous in classification and subject annotation, are to be identified as being constructions of concepts of the different kinds. The categories of concepts are facets, and the individual concepts, which are instances of those facets, are foci. Usually, there are constraints on how the foci can be combined into the compound concepts. What is standard is that any combination of foci is permitted from kind-to-kind across facets, but that the foci within a facet are restricted in their use by virtue of being dependent on each other, either by being exclusive of each other or by bearing some kind of hierarchical relationship to each other. Thus faceted classification is typically considered to be a synthetic classification consisting of orthogonal facets which themselves are composed individually either of exclusive foci or of a hierarchy of foci. This paper addresses in particular this second exclusive-or-hierarchical foci condition. It evaluates the arguments for the condition and finds them not conclusive. It suggests that wider synthetic constructions should be allowed on foci within a facet.

Type

a

0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 3183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=3183,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3183, 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=3183)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Division is obviously important to Knowledge Organization. Typically, an organizational infrastructure might acknowledge three types of connecting relationships: class hierarchies, where some classes are subclasses of others, partitive hierarchies, where some items are parts of others, and instantiation, where some items are members of some classes (see Z39.19 ANSI/NISO 2005 as an example). The first two of these involve division (the third, instantiation, does not involve division). Logical division would usually be a part of hierarchical classification systems, which, in turn, are central to shelving in libraries, to subject classification schemes, to controlled vocabularies, and to thesauri. Partitive hierarchies, and partitive division, are often essential to controlled vocabularies, thesauri, and subject tagging systems. Partitive hierarchies also relate to the bearers of information; for example, a journal would typically have its component articles as parts and, in turn, they might have sections as their parts, and, of course, components might be arrived at by partitive division (see Tillett 2009 as an illustration). Finally, verbal division, disambiguating homographs, is basic to controlled vocabularies. Thus Division is a broad and relevant topic. This article, though, is going to focus on Logical Division.

Type

a