-
Winske, E.: ¬The development and structure of an urban, regional, and local documents classification scheme (1996)
0.01
0.010506973 = product of:
0.031520918 = sum of:
0.010820055 = weight(_text_:in in 7241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010820055 = score(doc=7241,freq=6.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 7241, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7241)
0.020700864 = product of:
0.04140173 = sum of:
0.04140173 = weight(_text_:22 in 7241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04140173 = score(doc=7241,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Discusses the reasons for the decision, taken at Florida International University Library to develop an in house classification system for their local documents collections. Reviews the structures of existing classification systems, noting their strengths and weaknesses in relation to the development of an in house system and describes the 5 components of the new system; geography, subject categories, extensions for population group and/or function, extensions for type of publication, and title/series designator
- 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
-
Olson, H.A.: Sameness and difference : a cultural foundation of classification (2001)
0.01
0.010506973 = product of:
0.031520918 = sum of:
0.010820055 = weight(_text_:in in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010820055 = score(doc=166,freq=6.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 166, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=166)
0.020700864 = product of:
0.04140173 = sum of:
0.04140173 = weight(_text_:22 in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04140173 = score(doc=166,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- 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
-
Belayche, C.: ¬A propos de la classification de Dewey (1997)
0.01
0.010265838 = product of:
0.030797515 = sum of:
0.0071393843 = weight(_text_:in in 1171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0071393843 = score(doc=1171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 1171, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1171)
0.02365813 = product of:
0.04731626 = sum of:
0.04731626 = weight(_text_:22 in 1171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04731626 = score(doc=1171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- 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
-
Howarth, L.C.; Jansen, E.H.: Towards a typology of warrant for 21st century knowledge organization systems (2014)
0.01
0.00990557 = product of:
0.02971671 = sum of:
0.011973113 = weight(_text_:in in 1425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011973113 = score(doc=1425,freq=10.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 1425, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1425)
0.017743597 = product of:
0.035487194 = sum of:
0.035487194 = weight(_text_:22 in 1425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035487194 = score(doc=1425,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- 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.
- Series
- Advances in knowledge organization; vol. 14
- 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
-
Dousa, T.M.: Categories and the architectonics of system in Julius Otto Kaiser's method of systematic indexing (2014)
0.01
0.009632261 = product of:
0.02889678 = sum of:
0.014110449 = weight(_text_:in in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014110449 = score(doc=1418,freq=20.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.2376267 = fieldWeight in 1418, product of:
4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
20.0 = termFreq=20.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1418)
0.014786332 = product of:
0.029572664 = sum of:
0.029572664 = weight(_text_:22 in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029572664 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- 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.
- Series
- Advances in knowledge organization; vol. 14
- 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
-
Jacob, E.K.: Proposal for a classification of classifications built on Beghtol's distinction between "Naïve Classification" and "Professional Classification" (2010)
0.01
0.009484224 = product of:
0.028452672 = sum of:
0.010709076 = weight(_text_:in in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010709076 = score(doc=2945,freq=8.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 2945, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2945)
0.017743597 = product of:
0.035487194 = sum of:
0.035487194 = weight(_text_:22 in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035487194 = score(doc=2945,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- 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
-
Green, R.: Relational aspects of subject authority control : the contributions of classificatory structure (2015)
0.01
0.0091357 = product of:
0.027407099 = sum of:
0.012620768 = weight(_text_:in in 2282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012620768 = score(doc=2282,freq=16.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 2282, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2282)
0.014786332 = product of:
0.029572664 = sum of:
0.029572664 = weight(_text_:22 in 2282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029572664 = score(doc=2282,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- 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
-
Slavic, A.: On the nature and typology of documentary classifications and their use in a networked environment (2007)
0.01
0.009005977 = product of:
0.027017929 = sum of:
0.009274333 = weight(_text_:in in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009274333 = score(doc=780,freq=6.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.1561842 = fieldWeight in 780, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=780)
0.017743597 = product of:
0.035487194 = sum of:
0.035487194 = weight(_text_:22 in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035487194 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- 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
-
Beghtol, C.: Naïve classification systems and the global information society (2004)
0.01
0.008863994 = product of:
0.02659198 = sum of:
0.011805649 = weight(_text_:in in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011805649 = score(doc=3483,freq=14.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 3483, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3483)
0.014786332 = product of:
0.029572664 = sum of:
0.029572664 = weight(_text_:22 in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029572664 = score(doc=3483,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Classification is an activity that transcends time and space and that bridges the divisions between different languages and cultures, including the divisions between academic disciplines. Classificatory activity, however, serves different purposes in different situations. Classifications for infonnation retrieval can be called "professional" classifications and classifications in other fields can be called "naïve" classifications because they are developed by people who have no particular interest in classificatory issues. The general purpose of naïve classification systems is to discover new knowledge. In contrast, the general purpose of information retrieval classifications is to classify pre-existing knowledge. Different classificatory purposes may thus inform systems that are intended to span the cultural specifics of the globalized information society. This paper builds an previous research into the purposes and characteristics of naïve classifications. It describes some of the relationships between the purpose and context of a naive classification, the units of analysis used in it, and the theory that the context and the units of analysis imply.
- Footnote
- Vgl.: Jacob, E.K.: Proposal for a classification of classifications built on Beghtol's distinction between "Naïve Classification" and "Professional Classification". In: Knowledge organization. 37(2010) no.2, S.111-120.
- Pages
- S.19-22
- Series
- Advances in knowledge organization; vol.9
-
Dousa, T.M.; Ibekwe-SanJuan, F.: Epistemological and methodological eclecticism in the construction of knowledge organization systems (KOSs) : the case of analytico-synthetic KOSs (2014)
0.01
0.008863994 = product of:
0.02659198 = sum of:
0.011805649 = weight(_text_:in in 1417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011805649 = score(doc=1417,freq=14.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 1417, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1417)
0.014786332 = product of:
0.029572664 = sum of:
0.029572664 = weight(_text_:22 in 1417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029572664 = score(doc=1417,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1417, 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=1417)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- In recent years, Hjørland has developed a typology of basic epistemological approaches to KO that identifies four basic positions - empiricism, rationalism, historicism/hermeneutics, and pragmatism -with which to characterize the epistemological bases and methodological orientation of KOSs. Although scholars of KO have noted that the design of a single KOS may incorporate epistemological-methodological features from more than one of these approaches, studies of concrete examples of epistemologico-methodological eclecticism have been rare. In this paper, we consider the phenomenon of epistemologico-methodological eclecticism in one theoretically significant family of KOSs - namely analytico-synthetic, or faceted, KOSs - by examining two cases - Julius Otto Kaiser's method of Systematic Indexing (SI) and Brian Vickery's method of facet analysis (FA) for document classification. We show that both of these systems combined classical features of rationalism with elements of empiricism and pragmatism and argue that such eclecticism is the norm, rather than the exception, for such KOSs in general.
- Series
- Advances in knowledge organization; vol. 14
- 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
-
Zhang, J.; Zeng, M.L.: ¬A new similarity measure for subject hierarchical structures (2014)
0.01
0.008863994 = product of:
0.02659198 = sum of:
0.011805649 = weight(_text_:in in 1778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011805649 = score(doc=1778,freq=14.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 1778, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1778)
0.014786332 = product of:
0.029572664 = sum of:
0.029572664 = weight(_text_:22 in 1778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029572664 = score(doc=1778,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- 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
-
Qin, J.: Evolving paradigms of knowledge representation and organization : a comparative study of classification, XML/DTD and ontology (2003)
0.01
0.008849095 = product of:
0.026547283 = sum of:
0.014718218 = weight(_text_:in in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014718218 = score(doc=2763,freq=34.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.24786183 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
34.0 = termFreq=34.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
0.011829065 = product of:
0.02365813 = sum of:
0.02365813 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02365813 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- The different points of views an knowledge representation and organization from various research communities reflect underlying philosophies and paradigms in these communities. This paper reviews differences and relations in knowledge representation and organization and generalizes four paradigms-integrative and disintegrative pragmatism and integrative and disintegrative epistemologism. Examples such as classification, XML schemas, and ontologies are compared based an how they specify concepts, build data models, and encode knowledge organization structures. 1. Introduction Knowledge representation (KR) is a term that several research communities use to refer to somewhat different aspects of the same research area. The artificial intelligence (AI) community considers KR as simply "something to do with writing down, in some language or communications medium, descriptions or pictures that correspond in some salient way to the world or a state of the world" (Duce & Ringland, 1988, p. 3). It emphasizes the ways in which knowledge can be encoded in a computer program (Bench-Capon, 1990). For the library and information science (LIS) community, KR is literally the synonym of knowledge organization, i.e., KR is referred to as the process of organizing knowledge into classifications, thesauri, or subject heading lists. KR has another meaning in LIS: it "encompasses every type and method of indexing, abstracting, cataloguing, classification, records management, bibliography and the creation of textual or bibliographic databases for information retrieval" (Anderson, 1996, p. 336). Adding the social dimension to knowledge organization, Hjoerland (1997) states that knowledge is a part of human activities and tied to the division of labor in society, which should be the primary organization of knowledge. Knowledge organization in LIS is secondary or derived, because knowledge is organized in learned institutions and publications. These different points of views an KR suggest that an essential difference in the understanding of KR between both AI and LIS lies in the source of representationwhether KR targets human activities or derivatives (knowledge produced) from human activities. This difference also decides their difference in purpose-in AI KR is mainly computer-application oriented or pragmatic and the result of representation is used to support decisions an human activities, while in LIS KR is conceptually oriented or abstract and the result of representation is used for access to derivatives from human activities.
- Date
- 12. 9.2004 17:22:35
- Series
- Advances in knowledge organization; vol.8
- Source
- Challenges in knowledge representation and organization for the 21st century: Integration of knowledge across boundaries. Proceedings of the 7th ISKO International Conference Granada, Spain, July 10-13, 2002. Ed.: M. López-Huertas
-
Bowker, G.C.; Star, S.L.: Sorting things out : classification and its consequences (1999)
0.01
0.008697838 = product of:
0.02609351 = sum of:
0.0071393843 = weight(_text_:in in 733) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0071393843 = score(doc=733,freq=8.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 733, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=733)
0.018954126 = weight(_text_:und in 733) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018954126 = score(doc=733,freq=8.0), product of:
0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.19590102 = fieldWeight in 733, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=733)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Is this book sociology, anthropology, or taxonomy? Sorting Things Out, by communications theorists Geoffrey C. Bowker and Susan Leigh Star, covers a lot of conceptual ground in its effort to sort out exactly how and why we classify and categorize the things and concepts we encounter day to day. But the analysis doesn't stop there; the authors go on to explore what happens to our thinking as a result of our classifications. With great insight and precise academic language, they pick apart our information systems and language structures that lie deeper than the everyday categories we use. The authors focus first on the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), a widely used scheme used by health professionals worldwide, but also look at other health information systems, racial classifications used by South Africa during apartheid, and more. Though it comes off as a bit too academic at times (by the end of the 20th century, most writers should be able to get the spelling of McDonald's restaurant right), the book has a clever charm that thoughtful readers will surely appreciate. A sly sense of humor sneaks into the writing, giving rise to the chapter title "The Kindness of Strangers," for example. After arguing that categorization is both strongly influenced by and a powerful reinforcer of ideology, it follows that revolutions (political or scientific) must change the way things are sorted in order to throw over the old system. Who knew that such simple, basic elements of thought could have such far-reaching consequences? Whether you ultimately place it with social science, linguistics, or (as the authors fear) fantasy, make sure you put Sorting Things Out in your reading pile.
- BK
- 02.10 / Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft
- Classification
- AN 93400 Allgemeines / Buch- und Bibliothekswesen, Informationswissenschaft / Informationswissenschaft / Grundlagen, Theorie / Klassifikation
02.10 / Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft
- Footnote
- Rez. in: Knowledge organization 27(2000) no.3, H.175-177 (B. Kwasnik); College and research libraries 61(2000) no.4, S.380-381 (J. Williams); Library resources and technical services 44(2000) no.4, S.107-108 (H.A. Olson); JASIST 51(2000) no.12, S.1149-1150 (T.A. Brooks)
- RVK
- AN 93400 Allgemeines / Buch- und Bibliothekswesen, Informationswissenschaft / Informationswissenschaft / Grundlagen, Theorie / Klassifikation
-
Henrichs, N.: Gegenstandstheoretische Grundlagen der Bibliotheksklassifikation? (1979)
0.01
0.008207378 = product of:
0.049244266 = sum of:
0.049244266 = weight(_text_:und in 1423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049244266 = score(doc=1423,freq=6.0), product of:
0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.5089658 = fieldWeight in 1423, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1423)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Source
- Klassifikation und Erkenntnis I. Proc. der Plenarvorträge und der Sektion 1 "Klassifikation und Wissensgewinnung" der 3. Fachtagung der Gesellschaft für Klassifikation, Königstein/Ts., 5.-6.4.1979
-
DIN 2331: Begriffssysteme und ihre Darstellung (1980)
0.01
0.007897554 = product of:
0.04738532 = sum of:
0.04738532 = weight(_text_:und in 1249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04738532 = score(doc=1249,freq=2.0), product of:
0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.48975256 = fieldWeight in 1249, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=1249)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
-
Gödert, W.: Strukturierung von Klassifikationssystemen und Online-Retrieval (1995)
0.01
0.007897554 = product of:
0.04738532 = sum of:
0.04738532 = weight(_text_:und in 922) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04738532 = score(doc=922,freq=8.0), product of:
0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.48975256 = fieldWeight in 922, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=922)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Imprint
- Oldenburg : Bibliotheks- und Informationssystem
- Source
- Aufbau und Erschließung begrifflicher Datenbanken: Beiträge zur bibliothekarischen Klassifikation. Eine Auswahl von Vorträgen der Jahrestagungen 1993 (Kaiserslautern) und 1994 (Oldenburg) der Gesellschaft für Klassifikation. Hrsg.: H. Havekost u. H.-J. Wätjen
-
Kluth, R.: Schlagwortindex und Schlagwortkatalog (1957)
0.01
0.007818179 = product of:
0.04690907 = sum of:
0.04690907 = weight(_text_:und in 273) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04690907 = score(doc=273,freq=4.0), product of:
0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.4848303 = fieldWeight in 273, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=273)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Source
- Zeitschrift für Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie. 4(1957), S.169-176
-
Kwasnik, B.H.: ¬The role of classification in knowledge representation (1999)
0.01
0.0076993788 = product of:
0.023098135 = sum of:
0.005354538 = weight(_text_:in in 2464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.005354538 = score(doc=2464,freq=2.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 2464, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2464)
0.017743597 = product of:
0.035487194 = sum of:
0.035487194 = weight(_text_:22 in 2464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035487194 = score(doc=2464,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Source
- Library trends. 48(1999) no.1, S.22-47
-
Wang, Z.; Chaudhry, A.S.; Khoo, C.S.G.: Using classification schemes and thesauri to build an organizational taxonomy for organizing content and aiding navigation (2008)
0.01
0.007512714 = product of:
0.02253814 = sum of:
0.010709076 = weight(_text_:in in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010709076 = score(doc=2346,freq=18.0), product of:
0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 2346, product of:
4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
18.0 = termFreq=18.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2346)
0.011829065 = product of:
0.02365813 = sum of:
0.02365813 = weight(_text_:22 in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02365813 = score(doc=2346,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15286934 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2346, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2346)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Purpose - Potential and benefits of classification schemes and thesauri in building organizational taxonomies cannot be fully utilized by organizations. Empirical data of building an organizational taxonomy by the top-down approach of using classification schemes and thesauri appear to be lacking. The paper seeks to make a contribution in this regard. Design/methodology/approach - A case study of building an organizational taxonomy was conducted in the information studies domain for the Division of Information Studies at Nanyang Technology University, Singapore. The taxonomy was built by using the Dewey Decimal Classification, the Information Science Taxonomy, two information systems taxonomies, and three thesauri (ASIS&T, LISA, and ERIC). Findings - Classification schemes and thesauri were found to be helpful in creating the structure and categories related to the subject facet of the taxonomy, but organizational community sources had to be consulted and several methods had to be employed. The organizational activities and stakeholders' needs had to be identified to determine the objectives, facets, and the subject coverage of the taxonomy. Main categories were determined by identifying the stakeholders' interests and consulting organizational community sources and domain taxonomies. Category terms were selected from terminologies of classification schemes, domain taxonomies, and thesauri against the stakeholders' interests. Hierarchical structures of the main categories were constructed in line with the stakeholders' perspectives and the navigational role taking advantage of structures/term relationships from classification schemes and thesauri. Categories were determined in line with the concepts and the hierarchical levels. Format of categories were uniformed according to a commonly used standard. The consistency principle was employed to make the taxonomy structure and categories neater. Validation of the draft taxonomy through consultations with the stakeholders further refined the taxonomy. Originality/value - No similar study could be traced in the literature. The steps and methods used in the taxonomy development, and the information studies taxonomy itself, will be helpful for library and information schools and other similar organizations in their effort to develop taxonomies for organizing content and aiding navigation on organizational sites.
- Date
- 7.11.2008 15:22:04
-
Weinberger, O.: Begriffsstruktur und Klassifikation (1980)
0.01
0.007313236 = product of:
0.043879416 = sum of:
0.043879416 = weight(_text_:und in 1440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043879416 = score(doc=1440,freq=14.0), product of:
0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.043654136 = queryNorm
0.4535172 = fieldWeight in 1440, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1440)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Abstract
- Klassifikation kann sich auf verschiedene Gegenstandsbereiche beziehen. Sie ist im Prinzip eine extensionale Vorgangsweise resp. ein extensionales Gebilde auch dann, wenn ihr Gegenstand begriffliche Gebilde bzw. Wissen (Wissensbestandteile) sind. Die Erstellung dieses extensionalen Gebildes, das wir 'Klassat' nennen, beruht auf begrifflichen Analysen. Die Probleme der Begriffstrukturen, der Definitionen und der verschiedenen Eigentümlichkeiten gewisser Begriffe der pragmatischen Sprachen stellen daher Grundlagenprobleme der Klassifikationstheorie dar. Hieraus ergibt sich die Aufgabenstellung: Skizzzierung der logischen Grundstruktur der Klassifikation, Hinweis auf die Relevanz methodologischer Momente der Problemsituation für das Klassieren und auf gewisse strukturelle und semantische Eigentümlichkeiten der Begriffsapparatur der modernen Wissenschaften und der Umgangssprache, die Probleme der Klassifizierungsaufgaben mit such bringen und die bewirken, daß die Klassifikationen oft als praktische Annäherungen anzusehen sind
- Source
- Wissensstrukturen und Ordnungsmuster. Proc. der 4. Fachtagung der Gesellschaft für Klassifikation, Salzburg, 16.-19.4.1980. Red.: W. Dahlberg
