Search (39 results, page 1 of 2)

0.012341825 = product of:
  0.043196388 = sum of:
    0.024731567 = weight(_text_:with in 2550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024731567 = score(doc=2550,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2635687 = fieldWeight in 2550, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2550)
    0.018464822 = product of:
      0.036929645 = sum of:
        0.036929645 = weight(_text_:22 in 2550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036929645 = score(doc=2550,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = 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(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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.

Date

9. 2.1997 18:44:22

0.008804738 = product of:
  0.030816581 = sum of:
    0.014989593 = weight(_text_:with in 538) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014989593 = score(doc=538,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.15974675 = fieldWeight in 538, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=538)
    0.015826989 = product of:
      0.031653978 = sum of:
        0.031653978 = weight(_text_:22 in 538) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031653978 = score(doc=538,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 538, 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=538)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The elements that comprise 'style' in creative writing are directly applicable to librarians, in the choice of books and periodicals, and in the process of cataloguing and classification to make them accessible to users. By the selection and arrangement of their stock librarians reveal professional accounts of the culture they have inherited and are endeavouring to pass on to future generations. Illustrates the discussion with particular reference to the life and career of Dr. John Henry Pyle Pafford, Librarian at London University, and in particular to his views on the development of general classification schemes, such as the DDC and BC, and the work of the CRG. Concludes by noting his work in the fields of education, national and international library cooperation, and as Library-Keeper of the University

Date

9. 2.1997 18:44:22

0.007337282 = product of:
  0.025680486 = sum of:
    0.012491328 = weight(_text_:with in 116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012491328 = score(doc=116,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.1331223 = fieldWeight in 116, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=116)
    0.013189158 = product of:
      0.026378317 = sum of:
        0.026378317 = weight(_text_:22 in 116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026378317 = score(doc=116,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 116, 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=116)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The origin of the abridged edition of the Dewey system goes back to 1894 when an outline of 192 pages based on the full 5th Edition (1894) was issued for small public and school libraries of North America. New editions have appeared regularly following closely the publication of new full editions. An abridged version, which is always in one volume, comprises an introduction, schedules, four tables (namely 1, 2, 3 and 4) only, and the relative index and other minor features of the full edition, and has shorter numbers. Abridged 15 is a logical abridgement of the DDC23 (2011) and is a product of a new approach to development of an abridged edition of the DDC. Its content has been derived from the DDC database applying a set of rules to extract the edition using the new (2010) version of the editorial support system. The revision process has been informed by interaction with an always widening and diversified Dewey community at home and abroad. It aims to improve the currency of the schedules continuing to serve as shelving tool while recognizing its 'other' uses as a spinoff of its simplicity and inexpensiveness.

Date

3. 3.2016 18:59:22

0.0060293297 = product of:
  0.042205308 = sum of:
    0.042205308 = product of:
      0.084410615 = sum of:
        0.084410615 = weight(_text_:22 in 1168) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084410615 = score(doc=1168,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 1168, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1168)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Nachrichten für Dokumentation. 22(1971), S.55-63

0.005710321 = product of:
  0.039972246 = sum of:
    0.039972246 = weight(_text_:with in 1390) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039972246 = score(doc=1390,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.42599133 = fieldWeight in 1390, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1390)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Footnote

2nd ed.: ... with tables, indexes etc. for the subdivision of subjects. London 1914

0.004521997 = product of:
  0.031653978 = sum of:
    0.031653978 = product of:
      0.063307956 = sum of:
        0.063307956 = weight(_text_:22 in 3554) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063307956 = score(doc=3554,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3554, 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=3554)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

25.12.1995 22:28:43

0.004037807 = product of:
  0.02826465 = sum of:
    0.02826465 = weight(_text_:with in 3677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02826465 = score(doc=3677,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.30122137 = fieldWeight in 3677, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3677)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Attempts to present a logical analysis of the concept of classification with special reference to library science. examines the view that the objective of classification adopted in the library is not to categorise books but knowledge and focuses on the concept of knowledge. With regard to classification of knowledge, it has been pointed out that there are no natural classes and all classifications are artificial. Classification of knowledge can never be absolute and final as knowledge is neither static not circumscribed

0.004037807 = product of:
  0.02826465 = sum of:
    0.02826465 = weight(_text_:with in 689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02826465 = score(doc=689,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.30122137 = fieldWeight in 689, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=689)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Revisits the heritage of faceted classification (FC) beginning with an examination of the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) in its early manifestations and the groundwork established by international documentalist groups. Early document retrieval experimentation with FC during the intensive period of system design, testing and evaluation in the 1950s and 1960s is discussed, as well as the rise of an international discourse community that sought to augment and extend the reach of FC through system implementations. A list of acronyms employed in the article is given in an appendix.

0.0039902087 = product of:
  0.02793146 = sum of:
    0.02793146 = weight(_text_:with in 3849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02793146 = score(doc=3849,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2976705 = fieldWeight in 3849, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3849)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Various fields, each with its own theories, techniques, and tools, are concerned with identifying and representing the conceptual structure of specific knowledge domains. This paper compares facet analysis, an analytic technique coming out of knowledge organization (especially as undertaken by members of the Classification Research Group (CRG)), with semantic frame analysis, an analytic technique coming out of lexical semantics (especially as undertaken by the developers of Frame-Net) The investigation addresses three questions: 1) how do CRG-style facet analysis and semantic frame analysis characterize the conceptual structures that they identify?; 2) how similar are the techniques they use?; and, 3) how similar are the conceptual structures they produce? Facet analysis is concerned with the logical categories underlying the terminology of an entire field, while semantic frame analysis is concerned with the participant-and-prop structure manifest in sentences about a type of situation or event. When their scope of application is similar, as, for example, in the areas of the performing arts or education, the resulting facets and semantic frame elements often bear striking resemblance, without being the same; facets are more often expressed as semantic types, while frame elements are more often expressed as roles.

0.003568951 = product of:
  0.024982655 = sum of:
    0.024982655 = weight(_text_:with in 2359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024982655 = score(doc=2359,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2662446 = fieldWeight in 2359, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2359)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Survey of studies in Russia during the past 45 years concerning the work of S.R. Ranganathan, especially with regard to his classification terminology, the chain procedure and the categorial analysis for the application in the alphabetic subject index and the classified catalogue

0.003568951 = product of:
  0.024982655 = sum of:
    0.024982655 = weight(_text_:with in 2516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024982655 = score(doc=2516,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2662446 = fieldWeight in 2516, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2516)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Records the dates of S.R. Ranganathan's development in the field of library classification are given together with a short description of their impact and significance. The chronology is structured according to periods of his life

0.0035330812 = product of:
  0.024731567 = sum of:
    0.024731567 = weight(_text_:with in 1243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024731567 = score(doc=1243,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2635687 = fieldWeight in 1243, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1243)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The history of book numbers starts only with Melvil Dewey, as before hom books were shelved in fixed location systems. The article traces the early attempts by Dewey himself to combine class numbers with author numbers and shows the development in the individualization of book numbers by a great number of classificationists and classifiers, among which J. Schwartz, W.S. Biscoe, Ch.A. Cutter, K.E. Sanborn, J.D. Brown, A.F. Rider and finally S.R. Ranganathan whose faceted structure and ease of application of book numbers seems still to be the optimal solution. Two rival systems of book numbers are alphabetical by author and chronological by the year of publication of a books. The concluding chapter is devoted to the existing literatur on book numbers and laments its vanishing quality. The study of book numbers is not getting due attention.

0.0035330812 = product of:
  0.024731567 = sum of:
    0.024731567 = weight(_text_:with in 4466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024731567 = score(doc=4466,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2635687 = fieldWeight in 4466, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4466)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This paper examines Parmenides's 'Fragments', Plato's 'The sophist', and Aristotle's 'Prior analytics, parts of animals', and 'Generation of animals' to identify 3 underlying presumptions of classical logic using the method of Foucauldian discourse analysis. These 3 presumptions are the notion of mutually exclusive categories, teleology in the sense of linear progression toward a goal, and hierarchy both through logical division and through the dominance of some classes over others. These 3 presumptions are linked to classificatory thought in the western tradition. The purpose of making the connections is to investigate the cultural specifity to western culture of widespread classificatory practice. It is a step in a larger study to examine classification as a cultural construction that may be systematically incompatible with other cultures and with marginalized elements of western culture

0.0035330812 = product of:
  0.024731567 = sum of:
    0.024731567 = weight(_text_:with in 1594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024731567 = score(doc=1594,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.2635687 = fieldWeight in 1594, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1594)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The paper explores the cultural construction of classification by identifying fundamental characteristics of classification and examining how these fit with other cultures. Foucault's method of discourse analysis is applied to selected texts an classification in two areas. The first area is classification originated in the dominant Western culture. The second area is classifications from indigenous cultures. It is concluded that classification research needs to have an increasing awareness of the cultural construction of classification schemes and to work with alternatives to approaches of fundamental universal principles of classification.

0.0030283553 = product of:
  0.021198487 = sum of:
    0.021198487 = weight(_text_:with in 3860) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021198487 = score(doc=3860,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.22591603 = fieldWeight in 3860, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3860)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The studies of library classifications generally interact with a historical approach that contextualizes the research and with the ideas related to classification that are typical of Philosophy. In the 19th century, the North-American philosopher and educator William Torrey Harris developed a book classification at the St. Louis Public School, based on Francis Bacon and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. The objective of the present study is to analyze Harris's classification, reflecting upon his theoretical and philosophical backgrounds in order to understand Harris's contribution to Knowledge Organization (KO). To achieve such objective, this study adopts a critical - descriptive approach for the analysis. The results show some influences of Bacon and Hegel in Harris's classification

0.0030146649 = product of:
  0.021102654 = sum of:
    0.021102654 = product of:
      0.042205308 = sum of:
        0.042205308 = weight(_text_:22 in 6607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042205308 = score(doc=6607,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13635688 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038938753 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 6607, 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=6607)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Probleme des Wiederaufbaus im wissenschaftlichen Bibliothekswesen: aus d. Verhandlungen des 1. Bibliothekartagung der britischen Zone in Hamburg vom 22.-24.10.1946

0.0028551605 = product of:
  0.019986123 = sum of:
    0.019986123 = weight(_text_:with in 899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019986123 = score(doc=899,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.21299566 = fieldWeight in 899, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=899)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Report of 2 study days held in Toulouse in Feb 94 by LIBER to discuss applications to date of the SIBIL version of the Brunet-Parguez classification scheme for computerized indexing of books published before 1800, first introduced in 1987. The scheme is an adaptation by Guy Parguez of the 19th century Brunet system. Paricipants were overall satisfied with the basic structure, and agreed plans for further developments, including a new edition of the table, expansion of coverage, and translation

0.0028551605 = product of:
  0.019986123 = sum of:
    0.019986123 = weight(_text_:with in 3621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019986123 = score(doc=3621,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.21299566 = fieldWeight in 3621, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3621)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Henry Evelyn Bliss (1870-1955) devoted several decades of his life to the study of classification and the development of the Bibliographic Classification scheme while serving as a librarian in the College of the City of New York. In the course of the development of the Bibliographic Classification, Bliss developed a body of classification theory published in a number of articles and books, among which the best known are The Organization of Knowledge and the System of the Sciences (1929), Organization of Knowledge in Libraries and the Subject Approach to Books (1933; 2nd ed., 1939), and the lengthy preface to A Bibliographic Classification (Volumes 1-2, 1940; 2nd ed., 1952). In developing the Bibliographic Classification, Bliss carefully established its philosophical and theoretical basis, more so than was attempted by the makers of other classification schemes, with the possible exception of S. R. Ranganathan (q.v.) and his Colon Classification. The basic principles established by Bliss for the Bibliographic Classification are: consensus, collocation of related subjects, subordination of special to general and gradation in specialty, and the relativity of classes and of classification (hence alternative location and alternative treatment). In the preface to the schedules of A Bibliographic Classification, Bliss spells out the general principles of classification as weIl as principles specifically related to his scheme. The first volume of the schedules appeared in 1940. In 1952, he issued a second edition of the volume with a rewritten preface, from which the following excerpt is taken, and with the addition of a "Concise Synopsis," which is also included here to illustrate the principles of classificatory structure. In the excerpt reprinted below, Bliss discusses the correlation between classes, concepts, and terms, as weIl as the hierarchical structure basic to his classification scheme. In his discussion of cross-classification, Bliss recognizes the "polydimensional" nature of classification and the difficulties inherent in the two-dimensional approach which is characteristic of linear classification. This is one of the earliest works in which the multidimensional nature of classification is recognized. The Bibliographic Classification did not meet with great success in the United States because the Dewey Decimal Classification and the Library of Congress Classification were already weIl ensconced in American libraries by then. Nonetheless, it attracted considerable attention in the British Commonwealth and elsewhere in the world. A committee was formed in Britain which later became the Bliss Classification Association. A faceted edition of the scheme has been in preparation under the direction of J. Mills and V. Broughton. Several parts of this new edition, entitled Bliss Bibliographic Classification, have been published.

0.0028551605 = product of:
  0.019986123 = sum of:
    0.019986123 = weight(_text_:with in 3629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019986123 = score(doc=3629,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.21299566 = fieldWeight in 3629, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3629)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Toward the end of the nineteenth century, Paul Otlet and Henri LaFontaine of Belgium initiated the compilation of an index to all recorded knowledge. Instead of an alphabetical file, they decided to adopt a classified arrangement. For the basis of such an arrangement, they turned to the Dewey Decimal Classification, a system which was gaining wide acceptance in American libraries. With permission secured from Melvil Dewey to expand the system to include details required for an indexing tool, Otlet and LaFontaine began developing what was to become the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC). Following the establishment of the Institut International de Bibliographie (IIB), later the Fédération Internationale de Documentation (FID), in 1895, work an the universal index and the classification scheme proceeded under its aegis. In 1905, the classification scheme was published as the Manuel du Répertoire bibliographique universel. While the initial, ambitious project of the universal index was abandoned, the classification scheme itself was widely adopted, particularly in special libraries in Europe. A second edition was published in 1927-1933 under the title Classification décimale universelle. The development and maintanance of the scheme continued with the support of the FID. In the course of its development, the UDC moved further and further away from its prototype, the Dewey Decimal Classification. One of the major differences between the two systems is the use of relators in UDC. The notation adopted by Melvil Dewey for his scheme is a hierarchical one; in other words, the notation reflects the hierarchical relationships among subjects. However, it does not display the relationships among the facets, or aspects, of a particular subject. Furthermore, the use of auxiliaries in the Dewey Decimal Classification, beginning with the form subdivisions and gradually expanding to include geographic subdivisions and finally other auxiliaries in the most recent editions, has been relatively restricted. As an indexing tool, Otlet and LaFontaine felt that their system needed commonly applicable auxiliaries which they called "determinatives."` To this end, a series of special symbols were introduced into the system for the purpose of combining related subjects and indicating different facets or aspects of the main subject. The use of these symbols, called relators, with the auxiliaries has rendered the Universal Decimal Classification a synthetic scheme. In this respect, the UDC has moved much more rapidly than the Dewey Decimal Classification toward becoming a faceted classification. In the following paper, Henry V. Hopwood, a Senior Assistant at the British Patent Office Library during the 1900s, explains the use and rationale of relators, or "marks," as he calls them, in the Universal Decimal Classification.

0.0028551605 = product of:
  0.019986123 = sum of:
    0.019986123 = weight(_text_:with in 571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019986123 = score(doc=571,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09383348 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038938753 = queryNorm
        0.21299566 = fieldWeight in 571, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.409771 = idf(docFreq=10797, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=571)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

A native of Germany and a former teacher of languages and music, Julius Otto Kaiser (1868-1927) came to the Philadelphia Commercial Museum to be its librarian in 1896. Faced with the problem of making "information" accessible, he developed a method of indexing he called systematic indexing. The first draft of his scheme, published in 1896-97, was an important landmark in the history of subject analysis. R. K. Olding credits Kaiser with making the greatest single advance in indexing theory since Charles A. Cutter and John Metcalfe eulogizes him by observing that "in sheer capacity for really scientific and logical thinking, Kaiser's was probably the best mind that has ever applied itself to subject indexing." Kaiser was an admirer of "system." By systematic indexing he meant indicating information not with natural language expressions as, for instance, Cutter had advocated, but with artificial expressions constructed according to formulas. Kaiser grudged natural language its approximateness, its vagaries, and its ambiguities. The formulas he introduced were to provide a "machinery for regularising or standardising language" (paragraph 67). Kaiser recognized three categories or "facets" of index terms: (1) terms of concretes, representing things, real or imaginary (e.g., money, machines); (2) terms of processes, representing either conditions attaching to things or their actions (e.g., trade, manufacture); and (3) terms of localities, representing, for the most part, countries (e.g., France, South Africa). Expressions in Kaiser's index language were called statements. Statements consisted of sequences of terms, the syntax of which was prescribed by formula. These formulas specified sequences of terms by reference to category types. Only three citation orders were permitted: a term in the concrete category followed by one in the process category (e.g., Wool-Scouring); (2) a country term followed by a process term (e.g., Brazil - Education); and (3) a concrete term followed by a country term, followed by a process term (e.g., Nitrate-Chile-Trade). Kaiser's system was a precursor of two of the most significant developments in twentieth-century approaches to subject access-the special purpose use of language for indexing, thus the concept of index language, which was to emerge as a generative idea at the time of the second Cranfield experiment (1966) and the use of facets to categorize subject indicators, which was to become the characterizing feature of analytico-synthetic indexing methods such as the Colon classification. In addition to its visionary quality, Kaiser's work is notable for its meticulousness and honesty, as can be seen, for instance, in his observations about the difficulties in facet definition.