Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.091230854 = sum of:
  0.07790968 = product of:
    0.23372903 = sum of:
      0.23372903 = weight(_text_:bliss in 1857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.23372903 = score(doc=1857,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.34851158 = queryWeight, product of:
            7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0487184 = 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)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.013321174 = product of:
    0.03996352 = sum of:
      0.03996352 = weight(_text_:29 in 1857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03996352 = score(doc=1857,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1713761 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0487184 = queryNorm
          0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 1857, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1857)
    0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

Date

31. 5.2008 19:11:29

0.051939793 = product of:
  0.103879586 = sum of:
    0.103879586 = product of:
      0.31163874 = sum of:
        0.31163874 = weight(_text_:bliss in 3755) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.31163874 = score(doc=3755,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.34851158 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0487184 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.027545234 = product of:
  0.05509047 = sum of:
    0.05509047 = product of:
      0.1652714 = sum of:
        0.1652714 = weight(_text_:bliss in 831) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1652714 = score(doc=831,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.34851158 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0487184 = queryNorm
            0.4742207 = fieldWeight in 831, 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=831)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The main object of the paper is to demonstrate in detail the role of classification in information retrieval (IR) and the design of classificatory structures by the application of logical division to all forms of the content of records, subject and imaginative. The natural product of such division is a faceted classification. The latter is seen not as a particular kind of library classification but the only viable form enabling the locating and relating of information to be optimally predictable. A detailed exposition of the practical steps in facet analysis is given, drawing on the experience of the new Bliss Classification (BC2). The continued existence of the library as a highly organized information store is assumed. But, it is argued, it must acknowledge the relevance of the revolution in library classification that has taken place. It considers also how alphabetically arranged subject indexes may utilize controlled use of categorical (generically inclusive) and syntactic relations to produce similarly predictable locating and relating systems for IR.

0.02295436 = product of:
  0.04590872 = sum of:
    0.04590872 = product of:
      0.13772616 = sum of:
        0.13772616 = weight(_text_:bliss in 2497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13772616 = score(doc=2497,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.34851158 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0487184 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.01147718 = product of:
  0.02295436 = sum of:
    0.02295436 = product of:
      0.06886308 = sum of:
        0.06886308 = weight(_text_:bliss in 3262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06886308 = score(doc=3262,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.34851158 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0487184 = queryNorm
            0.19759195 = fieldWeight in 3262, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3262)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Several of the papers are clearly written as primers and neatly address the second agenda item: attracting others to the study and use of facet analysis. The most valuable papers are written in clear, approachable language. Vickery's paper (p. 145-160) is a clarion call for faceted classification and facet analysis. The heart of the paper is a primer for central concepts and techniques. Vickery explains the value of using faceted classification in document retrieval. Also provided are potential solutions to thorny interface and display issues with facets. Vickery looks to complementary themes in knowledge organization, such as thesauri and ontologies as potential areas for extending the facet concept. Broughton (p. 193-210) describes a rigorous approach to the application of facet analysis in the creation of a compatible thesaurus from the schedules of the 2nd edition of the Bliss Classification (BC2). This discussion of exemplary faceted thesauri, recent standards work, and difficulties encountered in the project will provide valuable guidance for future research in this area. Slavic (p. 257-271) provides a challenge to make faceted classification come 'alive' through promoting the use of machine-readable formats for use and exchange in applications such as Topic Maps and SKOS (Simple Knowledge Organization Systems), and as supported by the standard BS8723 (2005) Structured Vocabulary for Information Retrieval. She also urges designers of faceted classifications to get involved in standards work. Cheti and Paradisi (p. 223-241) outline a basic approach to converting an existing subject indexing tool, the Nuovo Soggetario, into a faceted thesaurus through the use of facet analysis. This discussion, well grounded in the canonical literature, may well serve as a primer for future efforts. Also useful for those who wish to construct faceted thesauri is the article by Tudhope and Binding (p. 211-222). This contains an outline of basic elements to be found in exemplar faceted thesauri, and a discussion of project FACET (Faceted Access to Cultural heritage Terminology) with algorithmically-based semantic query expansion in a dataset composed of items from the National Museum of Science and Industry indexed with AAT (Art and Architecture Thesaurus). This paper looks to the future hybridization of ontologies and facets through standards developments such as SKOS because of the "lightweight semantics" inherent in facets.

0.008880783 = product of:
  0.017761566 = sum of:
    0.017761566 = product of:
      0.053284694 = sum of:
        0.053284694 = weight(_text_:29 in 1476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053284694 = score(doc=1476,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1713761 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0487184 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 1476, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1476)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

29. 2.2008 13:41:01

0.008800895 = product of:
  0.01760179 = sum of:
    0.01760179 = product of:
      0.052805368 = sum of:
        0.052805368 = weight(_text_:22 in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052805368 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17060354 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0487184 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5083, 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=5083)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

27. 5.2007 22:19:35