Search (14 results, page 1 of 1)

0.23652087 = product of:
  0.47304174 = sum of:
    0.41555014 = weight(_text_:bliss in 2550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.41555014 = score(doc=2550,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.4336462 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06061936 = queryNorm
        0.95827 = fieldWeight in 2550, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2550)
    0.057491608 = weight(_text_:22 in 2550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057491608 = score(doc=2550,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21227868 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06061936 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2550, 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=2550)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The paper takes a retrospective look at the work of Henry Evelyn Bliss, classificationist theorist and author of the Bibliographic Classification. Major features of his writings and philosophy are examined and evaluated for the originality of their contribution to the corpus of knowledge in the discipline. Reactions to Bliss's work are analysed, as is his influence on classification theory of the 20th century. Contemporary work on knowledge organization is seen to continue a number of strands from Bliss's original writings. His standing as a classificationist is compared with that of Ranganathan, with the conclusion that he is not given the credit he deserves.

Biographed

Bliss, Henry Evelyn

Date

9. 2.1997 18:44:22

0.18136096 = product of:
  0.72544384 = sum of:
    0.72544384 = weight(_text_:bliss in 821) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.72544384 = score(doc=821,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.4336462 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06061936 = queryNorm
        1.6728933 = fieldWeight in 821, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=821)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

LCSH

Bliss Bibliographic classification

PRECIS

Documents / Subject classification schemes: Bliss, Henry Evelyn / Bliss bibliographic classification / Texts

Subject

Bliss Bibliographic classification
Documents / Subject classification schemes: Bliss, Henry Evelyn / Bliss bibliographic classification / Texts

0.12746125 = product of:
  0.2549225 = sum of:
    0.205644 = weight(_text_:bliss in 6392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.205644 = score(doc=6392,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4336462 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06061936 = queryNorm
        0.4742207 = fieldWeight in 6392, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6392)
    0.04927852 = weight(_text_:22 in 6392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04927852 = score(doc=6392,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21227868 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06061936 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 6392, 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=6392)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The ways in which notation can be used to express the content of documents to which it relates are various. At the most superficial level notation can correspond to the hierarchical structure of the schedules or link to literal components. The notation of compound concepts can express the structure and composition of the compound, and systems exist in which symbols denote the functional roles of the constituent elements and the relationships between them. At the highest level notation can be used to mirror the actual structure of those entities which it represents, as in the case of mathematical systems or chemical compounds. Methods of displaying these structures are examined, and the practicality in a documentary context is questioned, with particular reference to recent revision work on the chemistry class of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification 2nd edition (BC2)

Date

10. 8.2001 13:22:14

0.09694151 = product of:
  0.38776603 = sum of:
    0.38776603 = weight(_text_:bliss in 3755) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.38776603 = score(doc=3755,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.4336462 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06061936 = queryNorm
        0.8941991 = fieldWeight in 3755, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3755)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This entry looks at the origins of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification 2nd edition and the theory on which it is built. The reasons for the decision to revise the classification are examined, as are the influences on classification theory of the mid-twentieth century. The process of revision and construction of schedules using facet analysis is described. The use of BC2 is considered along with some recent development work on thesaural and digital formats.

0.072706126 = product of:
  0.2908245 = sum of:
    0.2908245 = weight(_text_:bliss in 1857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2908245 = score(doc=1857,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.4336462 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06061936 = queryNorm
        0.6706493 = fieldWeight in 1857, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1857)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Facet analysis is an established methodology for building classifications and subject indexing systems, but has been less rigorously applied to thesauri. The process of creating a compatible thesaurus from the schedules of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification 2nd edition highlights the ways in which the conceptual relationships in a subject field are handled in the two types of retrieval languages. An underlying uniformity of theory is established, and the way in which software can manage the relationships is discussed. The manner of displaying verbal expressions of concepts (vocabulary control) is also considered, but is found to be less well controlled in the classification than in the thesaurus. Nevertheless, there is good reason to think that facet analysis provides a sound basis for structuring a variety of knowledge organization tools.

0.072706126 = product of:
  0.2908245 = sum of:
    0.2908245 = weight(_text_:bliss in 3532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2908245 = score(doc=3532,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.4336462 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06061936 = queryNorm
        0.6706493 = fieldWeight in 3532, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3532)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The Bliss Bibliographic Classification is the only example of a fully faceted general classification scheme in the Western world. Although it is the object of much interest as a model for other tools it suffers from the lack of a web presence, and remedying this is an immediate objective for its editors. Understanding how this might be done presents some challenges, as the scheme is semantically very rich and complex in the range and nature of the relationships it contains. The automatic management of these is already in place using local software, but exporting this to a common data format needs careful thought and planning. Various encoding schemes, both for traditional classifications, and for digital materials, represent variously: the concepts; their functional roles; and the relationships between them. Integrating these aspects in a coherent and interchangeable manner appears to be achievable, but the most appropriate format is as yet unclear.

0.06058844 = product of:
  0.24235377 = sum of:
    0.24235377 = weight(_text_:bliss in 2633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24235377 = score(doc=2633,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.4336462 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06061936 = queryNorm
        0.5588744 = fieldWeight in 2633, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2633)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper examines the differences in the functional requirements of a faceted classification system when used in a conventional print-based environment (where the emphasis is on the browse function of the classification) as compared to its application to digital collections (where the retrieval function is paramount). The use of the second edition of Bliss's Bibliographic Classification (BC2) as a general classification for the physical organization of undergraduate collections in the University of Cambridge is described. The development of an online tool for indexing of digital resources using the Bliss terminologies is also described, and the advantages of facet analysis for data structuring and system syntax within the prototype tool are discussed. The move from the print-based environment to the digital makes different demands an both the content and the syntax of the classification, and while the conceptual structure remains similar, manipulation of the scheme and the process of content description can be markedly different.

0.06058844 = product of:
  0.24235377 = sum of:
    0.24235377 = weight(_text_:bliss in 5895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24235377 = score(doc=5895,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.4336462 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06061936 = queryNorm
        0.5588744 = fieldWeight in 5895, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5895)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Broughton is one of the key people working on the second edition of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification (BC2). Her article has a brief, informative history of facets, then discusses semantic vs. syntactic relationships, standard facets used by Ranganathan and the Classification Research Group, facet analysis and citation order, and how to build subject indexes out of faceted classifications, all with occasional reference to digital environments and hypertext, but never with any specifics. It concludes by saying of faceted classification that the "capacity which it has to create highly sophisticated structures for the accommodation of complex objects suggests that it is worth investigation as an organizational tool for digital materials, and that the results of such investigation would be knowledge structures of unparalleled utility and elegance." How to build them is left to the reader, but this article provides an excellent starting point. It includes an example that shows how general concepts can be applied to a small set of documents and subjects, and how terms can be adapted to suit the material and users

0.051411 = product of:
  0.205644 = sum of:
    0.205644 = weight(_text_:bliss in 2631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.205644 = score(doc=2631,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4336462 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06061936 = queryNorm
        0.4742207 = fieldWeight in 2631, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2631)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.0428425 = product of:
  0.17137 = sum of:
    0.17137 = weight(_text_:bliss in 2476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17137 = score(doc=2476,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4336462 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06061936 = queryNorm
        0.3951839 = fieldWeight in 2476, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2476)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Basic skills of classification and subject indexing have been little taught in British library schools since automation was introduced into libraries. However, development of the Internet as a major medium of publication has stretched the capability of search engines to cope with retrieval. Consequently, there has been interest in applying existing systems of knowledge organization to electronic resources. Unfortunately, the classification systems have been adopted without a full understanding of modern classification principles. Analytico-synthetic schemes have been used crudely, as in the case of the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC). The fully faceted Bliss Bibliographical Classification, 2nd edition (BC2) with its potential as a tool for electronic resource retrieval is virtually unknown outside academic libraries

0.0428425 = product of:
  0.17137 = sum of:
    0.17137 = weight(_text_:bliss in 2497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17137 = score(doc=2497,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4336462 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06061936 = queryNorm
        0.3951839 = fieldWeight in 2497, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2497)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

The paper describes current work on the generation of a thesaurus format from the schedules of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification 2nd edition (BC2). The practical problems that occur in moving from a concept based approach to a terminological approach cluster around issues of vocabulary control that are not fully addressed in a systematic structure. These difficulties can be exacerbated within domains in the humanities because large numbers of culture specific terms may need to be accommodated in any thesaurus. The ways in which these problems can be resolved within the context of a semi-automated approach to the thesaurus generation have consequences for the management of classification data in the source vocabulary. The way in which the vocabulary is marked up for the purpose of machine manipulation is described, and some of the implications for editorial policy are discussed and examples given. The value of the classification notation as a language independent representation and mapping tool should not be sacrificed in such an exercise.

0.0428425 = product of:
  0.17137 = sum of:
    0.17137 = weight(_text_:bliss in 4065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17137 = score(doc=4065,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4336462 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06061936 = queryNorm
        0.3951839 = fieldWeight in 4065, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4065)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Recent revision of UDC classes has aimed at implementing a more faceted approach. Many compound classes have been removed from the main tables, and more radical revisions of classes (particularly those for Medicine and Religion) have introduced a rigorous analysis, a clearer sense of citation order, and building of compound classes according to a more logical system syntax. The faceted approach provides a means of formalizing the relationships in the classification and making them explicit for machine recognition. In the Bliss Bibliographic Classification (BC2) (which has been a source for both UDC classes mentioned above), terminologies are encoded for automatic generation of hierarchical and associative relationships. Nevertheless, difficulties are encountered in vocabulary control, and a similar phenomenon is observed in UDC. Current work has revealed differences in the vocabulary of humanities and science, notably the way in which terms in the humanities should be handled when these are semantically complex. Achieving a balance between rigour in the structure of the classification and the complexity of natural language expression remains partially unresolved at present, but provides a fertile field for further research.

0.0428425 = product of:
  0.17137 = sum of:
    0.17137 = weight(_text_:bliss in 4826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17137 = score(doc=4826,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4336462 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06061936 = queryNorm
        0.3951839 = fieldWeight in 4826, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4826)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Facet analysis is proposed as a general theory of knowledge organization, with an associated methodology that may be applied to the development of terminology tools in a variety of contexts and formats. Faceted classifications originated as a means of representing complexity in semantic content that facilitates logical organization and effective retrieval in a physical environment. This is achieved through meticulous analysis of concepts, their structural and functional status (based on fundamental categories), and their inter-relationships. These features provide an excellent basis for the general conceptual modelling of domains, and for the generation of KOS other than systematic classifications. This is demonstrated by the adoption of a faceted approach to many web search and visualization tools, and by the emergence of a facet based methodology for the construction of thesauri. Current work on the Bliss Bibliographic Classification (Second Edition) is investigating the ways in which the full complexity of faceted structures may be represented through encoded data, capable of generating intellectually and mechanically compatible forms of indexing tools from a single source. It is suggested that a number of research questions relating to the Semantic Web could be tackled through the medium of facet analysis.

0.02463926 = product of:
  0.09855704 = sum of:
    0.09855704 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09855704 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21227868 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.06061936 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6048, 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=6048)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:41:14