-
Mills, J.; Broughton, V.: Bliss Bibliographic Classification : Introduction and auxiliary schedules (1992)
0.09
0.088087514 = product of:
0.17617503 = sum of:
0.10629547 = weight(_text_:subject in 821) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10629547 = score(doc=821,freq=8.0), product of:
0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.04700564 = queryNorm
0.63225883 = fieldWeight in 821, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=821)
0.06987957 = product of:
0.13975914 = sum of:
0.13975914 = weight(_text_:classification in 821) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.13975914 = score(doc=821,freq=22.0), product of:
0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.04700564 = queryNorm
0.93359995 = fieldWeight in 821, product of:
4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
22.0 = termFreq=22.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=821)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- COMPASS
- Documents / Subject classification
- LCSH
- Classification, Bibliographic
Bliss Bibliographic classification
- PRECIS
- Documents / Subject classification schemes: Bliss, Henry Evelyn / Bliss bibliographic classification / Texts
- Subject
- Classification, Bibliographic
Bliss Bibliographic classification
Documents / Subject classification schemes: Bliss, Henry Evelyn / Bliss bibliographic classification / Texts
Documents / Subject classification
-
Austin, D.: Basic concept classes and primitive relations (1982)
0.06
0.062208362 = product of:
0.124416724 = sum of:
0.0797216 = weight(_text_:subject in 6580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0797216 = score(doc=6580,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.04700564 = queryNorm
0.4741941 = fieldWeight in 6580, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6580)
0.04469512 = product of:
0.08939024 = sum of:
0.08939024 = weight(_text_:classification in 6580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08939024 = score(doc=6580,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.04700564 = queryNorm
0.5971325 = fieldWeight in 6580, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6580)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Source
- Universal classification I: subject analysis and ordering systems. Proc. of the 4th Int. Study Conf. on Classification research, Augsburg, 28.6.-2.7.1982. Ed.: I. Dahlberg
-
Sharada, B.A.: Ranganathan's Colon Classification : Kannada-English Version 'dwibindu vargiikaraNa' (2012)
0.06
0.058709674 = product of:
0.11741935 = sum of:
0.08054776 = weight(_text_:subject in 827) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08054776 = score(doc=827,freq=6.0), product of:
0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.04700564 = queryNorm
0.4791082 = fieldWeight in 827, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=827)
0.03687159 = product of:
0.07374318 = sum of:
0.07374318 = weight(_text_:classification in 827) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07374318 = score(doc=827,freq=8.0), product of:
0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.04700564 = queryNorm
0.49260917 = fieldWeight in 827, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=827)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- "dwibindu vargiikaraNa" is the Kannada rendering of the revised Colon Classification, 7th Edition, intended essentially for the classification of macro documents. This paper discusses the planning, preparation, and features of Colon Classification (CC) in Kannada, one of the major Indian languages as well as the Official Language of Karnataka, and uploading the CC on the web. Linguistic issues related to the Kannada rendering are discussed with possible solutions. It creates facilities in the field of Indexing Language (IL) to prepare products such as, Subject Heading List, Information Retrieval Thesaurus, and creation of subject glossaries or updating the available subject dictionaries in Kannada.
-
Wilson, T.D.: ¬The work of the British Classification Research Group (1972)
0.06
0.05566291 = product of:
0.11132582 = sum of:
0.0797216 = weight(_text_:subject in 2766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0797216 = score(doc=2766,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.04700564 = queryNorm
0.4741941 = fieldWeight in 2766, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2766)
0.031604223 = product of:
0.063208446 = sum of:
0.063208446 = weight(_text_:classification in 2766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.063208446 = score(doc=2766,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.04700564 = queryNorm
0.42223644 = fieldWeight in 2766, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2766)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Source
- Subject retrieval in the seventies: new directions. Proc. of an int. symp. ... College Park, 14.-15.5.1971. Ed.: H.H. Wellisch u.a
-
Gnoli, C.: "Classic"vs. "freely" faceted classification (2007)
0.05
0.052187763 = product of:
0.10437553 = sum of:
0.06904093 = weight(_text_:subject in 715) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06904093 = score(doc=715,freq=6.0), product of:
0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.04700564 = queryNorm
0.41066417 = fieldWeight in 715, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=715)
0.035334595 = product of:
0.07066919 = sum of:
0.07066919 = weight(_text_:classification in 715) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07066919 = score(doc=715,freq=10.0), product of:
0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.04700564 = queryNorm
0.4720747 = fieldWeight in 715, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=715)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Claudio Gnoli of the University of Pavia in Italy and Chair of ISKO Italy, explored the relative merits of classic 'faceted classification' (FC) and 'freely faceted classification' (FFC). In classic FC, the facets (and their relationships) which might be combined to express a compound subject, are restricted to those prescribed as inherent in the subject area. FC is therefore largely bounded by and restricted to a specific subject area. At the other extreme, free classification (as in the Web or folksonomies) allows the combination of values from multiple, disparate domains where the relationships among the elements are often indeterminate, and the semantics obscure. Claudio described how punched cards were an early example of free classification, and cited the coordination of dogs : postmen : bites as one where the absence of defined relationships made the semantics ambiguous
-
Asundi, A.Y.: Domain specific categories and relations and their potential applications : a case study of two arrays of agriculture schedule of Colon Classification (2012)
0.05
0.052187763 = product of:
0.10437553 = sum of:
0.06904093 = weight(_text_:subject in 843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06904093 = score(doc=843,freq=6.0), product of:
0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.04700564 = queryNorm
0.41066417 = fieldWeight in 843, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=843)
0.035334595 = product of:
0.07066919 = sum of:
0.07066919 = weight(_text_:classification in 843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07066919 = score(doc=843,freq=10.0), product of:
0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.04700564 = queryNorm
0.4720747 = fieldWeight in 843, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=843)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- The categories/isolates are broadly conceived as common and special. The common categories are applicable to all the classes of subjects in a Classification system, whereas the specials are applicable within a domain or specified classes of a classification system. The CC has represented some unique special categories, especially in the Agriculture Subject schedule, and such a provision is not seen in any other classification system; not even in any other subject schedule of Colon Classification. These special categories are termed here as "Domain Specific Categories". The paper analyses the thematic relationships within and outside the subject schedule with potential applications in devising a scheme of metadata as demonstrated in a research study on Indian Medicinal Plants. The other potential applications of such thematic relationships are in the creation of semantic maps and in linking concepts from different domains of knowledge.
-
Szostak, R.: Facet analysis using grammar (2017)
0.05
0.0485423 = product of:
0.0970846 = sum of:
0.07427622 = weight(_text_:subject in 3866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07427622 = score(doc=3866,freq=10.0), product of:
0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.04700564 = queryNorm
0.4418043 = fieldWeight in 3866, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3866)
0.022808382 = product of:
0.045616765 = sum of:
0.045616765 = weight(_text_:classification in 3866) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.045616765 = score(doc=3866,freq=6.0), product of:
0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.04700564 = queryNorm
0.3047229 = fieldWeight in 3866, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3866)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Basic grammar can achieve most/all of the goals of facet analysis without requiring the use of facet indicators. Facet analysis is thus rendered far simpler for classificationist, classifier, and user. We compare facet analysis and grammar, and show how various facets can be represented grammatically. We then address potential challenges in employing grammar as subject classification. A detailed review of basic grammar supports the hypothesis that it is feasible to usefully employ grammatical construction in subject classification. A manageable - and programmable - set of adjustments is required as classifiers move fairly directly from sentences in a document (or object or idea) description to formulating a subject classification. The user likewise can move fairly quickly from a query to the identification of relevant works. A review of theories in linguistics indicates that a grammatical approach should reduce ambiguity while encouraging ease of use. This paper applies the recommended approach to a small sample of recently published books. It finds that the approach is feasible and results in a more precise subject description than the subject headings assigned at present. It then explores PRECIS, an indexing system developed in the 1970s. Though our approach differs from PRECIS in many important ways, the experience of PRECIS supports our conclusions regarding both feasibility and precision.
-
Mills, J.: Faceted classification and logical division in information retrieval (2004)
0.05
0.047539394 = product of:
0.09507879 = sum of:
0.05637168 = weight(_text_:subject in 831) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05637168 = score(doc=831,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.04700564 = queryNorm
0.33530587 = fieldWeight in 831, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=831)
0.038707107 = product of:
0.077414215 = sum of:
0.077414215 = weight(_text_:classification in 831) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.077414215 = score(doc=831,freq=12.0), product of:
0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.04700564 = queryNorm
0.5171319 = fieldWeight in 831, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=831)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- 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.
-
Austin, D.: Differences between library classifications and machine-based subject retrieval systems : some inferences drawn from research in Britain, 1963-1973 (1979)
0.05
0.046385758 = product of:
0.092771515 = sum of:
0.06643467 = weight(_text_:subject in 2564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06643467 = score(doc=2564,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.04700564 = queryNorm
0.39516178 = fieldWeight in 2564, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2564)
0.02633685 = product of:
0.0526737 = sum of:
0.0526737 = weight(_text_:classification in 2564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0526737 = score(doc=2564,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.04700564 = queryNorm
0.35186368 = fieldWeight in 2564, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2564)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Source
- Ordering systems for global information networks. Proc. of the 3rd Int. Study Conf. on Classification Research, Bombay 1975. Ed. by A. Neelameghan
-
Panigrahi, P.: Ranganathan and Dewey in hierarchical subject classification : some similarities (2015)
0.04
0.044820573 = product of:
0.08964115 = sum of:
0.053147733 = weight(_text_:subject in 2789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.053147733 = score(doc=2789,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.04700564 = queryNorm
0.31612942 = fieldWeight in 2789, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2789)
0.036493413 = product of:
0.07298683 = sum of:
0.07298683 = weight(_text_:classification in 2789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07298683 = score(doc=2789,freq=6.0), product of:
0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.04700564 = queryNorm
0.48755667 = fieldWeight in 2789, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2789)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- S R Ranganathan and Melvil Dewey devised two types of classification schemes viz., faceted and enumerative. Ranganathan's faceted classification scheme is based on postulates, principles and canons. It has a strong theory. While working with the two schemes, similarities are observed. This paper tries to identify and present some relationships.
-
Broughton, V.: ¬A faceted classification as the basis of a faceted terminology : conversion of a classified structure to thesaurus format in the Bliss Bibliographic Classification, 2nd Edition (2008)
0.04
0.043987952 = product of:
0.087975904 = sum of:
0.05637168 = weight(_text_:subject in 1857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05637168 = score(doc=1857,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.04700564 = queryNorm
0.33530587 = fieldWeight in 1857, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1857)
0.031604223 = product of:
0.063208446 = sum of:
0.063208446 = weight(_text_:classification in 1857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.063208446 = score(doc=1857,freq=8.0), product of:
0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.04700564 = queryNorm
0.42223644 = fieldWeight in 1857, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1857)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- 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.
-
Thomas, A.R.: Bliss Bibliographic Classification 2nd Edition : principles features and applications (1992)
0.04
0.043863982 = product of:
0.087727964 = sum of:
0.046504267 = weight(_text_:subject in 541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.046504267 = score(doc=541,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.04700564 = queryNorm
0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 541, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=541)
0.041223694 = product of:
0.08244739 = sum of:
0.08244739 = weight(_text_:classification in 541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08244739 = score(doc=541,freq=10.0), product of:
0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.04700564 = queryNorm
0.55075383 = fieldWeight in 541, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=541)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Publication of the 2nd ed. of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification presents librarians with a fresh opportunity to reassess the nature and benefits of helpful order for their collections and records. Half the parts are now available, exhibiting major expansion, revision, and development of the scheme. The new edition is sponsored by the Bliss Classification Association which welcomes the views and inputs of American librarians. It has been applied to libraries and information centers and used in thesaurus construction. This edition provides intensive subject specifity through detailed term listings and full synthetic capability. The notation is designed to be as brief as possible for the detail attainable. The classification allows a large measure of flexibility in arrangement and syntax
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 15(1992) no.4, S.3-17
-
Dahlberg, I.: ¬A faceted classification of general concepts (2011)
0.04
0.042111166 = product of:
0.08422233 = sum of:
0.046976402 = weight(_text_:subject in 4824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.046976402 = score(doc=4824,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.04700564 = queryNorm
0.27942157 = fieldWeight in 4824, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4824)
0.037245933 = product of:
0.074491866 = sum of:
0.074491866 = weight(_text_:classification in 4824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.074491866 = score(doc=4824,freq=16.0), product of:
0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.04700564 = queryNorm
0.49761042 = fieldWeight in 4824, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4824)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- General concepts are all those form-categorial concepts which - attached to a specific concept of a classification system or thesaurus - can help to widen, sometimes even in a syntactical sense, the understanding of a case. In some existing universal classification systems such concepts have been named "auxiliaries" or "common isolates" as in the Colon Classification (CC). However, by such auxiliaries, different kinds of such concepts are listed, e.g. concepts of space and time, concepts of races and languages and concepts of kinds of documents, next to them also concepts of kinds of general activities, properties, persons, and institutions. Such latter kinds form part of the nine aspects ruling the facets in the Information Coding Classification (ICC) through the principle of using a Systematiser for the subdivision of subject groups and fields. Based on this principle and using and extending existing systems of such concepts, e.g. which A. Diemer had presented to the German Thesaurus Committee as well as those found in the UDC, in CC and attached to the Subject Heading System of the German National Library, a faceted classification is proposed for critical assessment, necessary improvement and possible later use in classification systems and thesauri.
- Source
- Classification and ontology: formal approaches and access to knowledge: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar, 19-20 September 2011, The Hague, The Netherlands. Eds.: A. Slavic u. E. Civallero
-
Khanna, J.K.: Analytico-synthetic classification : (a study in CC-7) (1994)
0.04
0.04126035 = product of:
0.0825207 = sum of:
0.046027288 = weight(_text_:subject in 1471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.046027288 = score(doc=1471,freq=6.0), product of:
0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.04700564 = queryNorm
0.2737761 = fieldWeight in 1471, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1471)
0.036493413 = product of:
0.07298683 = sum of:
0.07298683 = weight(_text_:classification in 1471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07298683 = score(doc=1471,freq=24.0), product of:
0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.04700564 = queryNorm
0.48755667 = fieldWeight in 1471, product of:
4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
24.0 = termFreq=24.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1471)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- ANALYTICO-SYNTHETIC CLASSIFICATION- the brain-child of S.R. Ranganathan has brought about an intellectual revolution in the theory and methodology of library classification by generating new ideas. By his vast erudition and deeper research in the Universe of Subjects, Ranganathan applied a postulation approach to classification based on the concept of facet analysis, Phase Analysis, Sector Analysis and Zone Analysis. His enquiry into the concept of fundamental Categories as well as the Analytico-Synthetic quality associated with it, the use of different connecting symbols as in the Meccano apparatus for constructing expressive class numbers for subjects of any depth, the versality of Notation, the analysis of Rounds and Levels, the formation and sharpening of Isolates through various devices, the introduction of the novel concepts of Specals, Systems, Speciators, and Environment Constituents has systematized the whole study of classification into principles, rules and canons. These new methodologies in classification invented as a part of Colon Classification have not only lifted practical classification form mere guess work to scientific methodology but also form an important theme in international conferences. The present work discusses in details the unique methodologies of Ranganathan as used in CC-7. The concepts of Primary Basic Subjects and Non -Primary Basic Subjects have also been discussed at length.
- Content
- Inhalt: 1. Species of Clasification 2. The Making of an Analytico -Synthetic Classification 3. Analytico -Synthetic Classification 4. Basic Subject 5. Primary Basic Subject 6. Non-Primary Basic Subject 7. Notation 8. Fundamental Categories 9. Rounds and Lvels 10. Facet Analyysis and Facet Sequence 11. Phase Realtion 12. Devices in Colon Classification 13. Common Isolates 14. Spece Isolates 15. Lnaguage Isolates 16. Time Isolates 17. Call Number-Class Numbers-Book Number 18. Ranganathan's nfluence on International Classification Thought 19. Alphabetical Index to the Schedule of Basic Subjects
-
Dahlberg, I.: ¬The future of classification in libraries and networks : a theoretical point of view (1995)
0.04
0.03961616 = product of:
0.07923232 = sum of:
0.046976402 = weight(_text_:subject in 5563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.046976402 = score(doc=5563,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.04700564 = queryNorm
0.27942157 = fieldWeight in 5563, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5563)
0.03225592 = product of:
0.06451184 = sum of:
0.06451184 = weight(_text_:classification in 5563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06451184 = score(doc=5563,freq=12.0), product of:
0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.04700564 = queryNorm
0.43094325 = fieldWeight in 5563, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5563)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Some time ago, some people said classification is dead, we don't need it any more. They probably thought that subject headings could do the job of the necessary subject analysis and shelving of books. However, all of a sudden in 1984 the attitude changed, when an OCLC study of Karen Markey started to show what could be done even with an "outdated system" such as the Dewey Decimal Classification in the computer, once it was visible on a screen to show the helpfulness of a classified library catalogue called an OPAC; classification was brought back into the minds of doubtful librarians and of all those who thought they would not need it any longer. But the problem once phrased: "We are stuck with the two old systems, LCC and DDC" would not find a solution and is still with us today. We know that our systems are outdated but we seem still to be unable to replace them with better ones. What then should one do and advise, knowing that we need something better? Perhaps a new universal ordering system which more adequately represents and mediates the world of our present day knowledge? If we were to develop it from scratch, how would we create it and implement it in such a way that it would be acceptable to the majority of the present intellectual world population?
- Footnote
- Paper presented at the 36th Allerton Institute, 23-25 Oct 94, Allerton Park, Monticello, IL: "New Roles for Classification in Libraries and Information Networks: Presentation and Reports"
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 21(1995) no.2, S.23-35
-
Johnson, E.H.: S R Ranganathan in the Internet age (2019)
0.04
0.039283954 = product of:
0.07856791 = sum of:
0.0398608 = weight(_text_:subject in 5406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0398608 = score(doc=5406,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.04700564 = queryNorm
0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 5406, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5406)
0.038707107 = product of:
0.077414215 = sum of:
0.077414215 = weight(_text_:classification in 5406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.077414215 = score(doc=5406,freq=12.0), product of:
0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.04700564 = queryNorm
0.5171319 = fieldWeight in 5406, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5406)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- S R Ranganathan's ideas have influenced library classification since the inception of his Colon Classification in 1933. His address at Elsinore, "Library Classification Through a Century", was his grand vision of the century of progress in classification from 1876 to 1975, and looked to the future of faceted classification as the means to provide a cohesive system to organize the world's information. Fifty years later, the internet and its achievements, social ecology, and consequences present a far more complicated picture, with the library as he knew it as a very small part and the problems that he confronted now greatly exacerbated. The systematic nature of Ranganathan's canons, principles, postulates, and devices suggest that modern semantic algorithms could guide automatic subject tagging. The vision presented here is one of internet-wide faceted classification and retrieval, implemented as open, distributed facets providing unified faceted searching across all web sites.
-
Broughton, V.: ¬The need for a faceted classification as the basis of all methods of information retrieval (2006)
0.04
0.03807854 = product of:
0.07615708 = sum of:
0.05753411 = weight(_text_:subject in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05753411 = score(doc=2874,freq=6.0), product of:
0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.04700564 = queryNorm
0.34222013 = fieldWeight in 2874, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2874)
0.018622966 = product of:
0.037245933 = sum of:
0.037245933 = weight(_text_:classification in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037245933 = score(doc=2874,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.04700564 = queryNorm
0.24880521 = fieldWeight in 2874, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2874)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The aim of this article is to estimate the impact of faceted classification and the faceted analytical method on the development of various information retrieval tools over the latter part of the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Design/methodology/approach - The article presents an examination of various subject access tools intended for retrieval of both print and digital materials to determine whether they exhibit features of faceted systems. Some attention is paid to use of the faceted approach as a means of structuring information on commercial web sites. The secondary and research literature is also surveyed for commentary on and evaluation of facet analysis as a basis for the building of vocabulary and conceptual tools. Findings - The study finds that faceted systems are now very common, with a major increase in their use over the last 15 years. Most LIS subject indexing tools (classifications, subject heading lists and thesauri) now demonstrate features of facet analysis to a greater or lesser degree. A faceted approach is frequently taken to the presentation of product information on commercial web sites, and there is an independent strand of theory and documentation related to this application. There is some significant research on semi-automatic indexing and retrieval (query expansion and query formulation) using facet analytical techniques. Originality/value - This article provides an overview of an important conceptual approach to information retrieval, and compares different understandings and applications of this methodology.
-
Kaiser, J.O.: Systematic indexing (1985)
0.03
0.034977857 = product of:
0.069955714 = sum of:
0.059420973 = weight(_text_:subject in 571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.059420973 = score(doc=571,freq=10.0), product of:
0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.04700564 = queryNorm
0.35344344 = fieldWeight in 571, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=571)
0.01053474 = product of:
0.02106948 = sum of:
0.02106948 = weight(_text_:classification in 571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02106948 = score(doc=571,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.04700564 = queryNorm
0.14074548 = fieldWeight in 571, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=571)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- 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.
- Source
- Theory of subject analysis: a sourcebook. Ed.: L.M. Chan, et al
-
Frické, M.: Logical division (2016)
0.03
0.032799684 = product of:
0.06559937 = sum of:
0.046976402 = weight(_text_:subject in 3183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.046976402 = score(doc=3183,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.04700564 = queryNorm
0.27942157 = fieldWeight in 3183, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3183)
0.018622966 = product of:
0.037245933 = sum of:
0.037245933 = weight(_text_:classification in 3183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037245933 = score(doc=3183,freq=4.0), product of:
0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.04700564 = queryNorm
0.24880521 = fieldWeight in 3183, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3183)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Division is obviously important to Knowledge Organization. Typically, an organizational infrastructure might acknowledge three types of connecting relationships: class hierarchies, where some classes are subclasses of others, partitive hierarchies, where some items are parts of others, and instantiation, where some items are members of some classes (see Z39.19 ANSI/NISO 2005 as an example). The first two of these involve division (the third, instantiation, does not involve division). Logical division would usually be a part of hierarchical classification systems, which, in turn, are central to shelving in libraries, to subject classification schemes, to controlled vocabularies, and to thesauri. Partitive hierarchies, and partitive division, are often essential to controlled vocabularies, thesauri, and subject tagging systems. Partitive hierarchies also relate to the bearers of information; for example, a journal would typically have its component articles as parts and, in turn, they might have sections as their parts, and, of course, components might be arrived at by partitive division (see Tillett 2009 as an illustration). Finally, verbal division, disambiguating homographs, is basic to controlled vocabularies. Thus Division is a broad and relevant topic. This article, though, is going to focus on Logical Division.
-
Frické, M.: Faceted classification : orthogonal facets and graphs of foci? (2011)
0.03
0.031331412 = product of:
0.062662825 = sum of:
0.033217333 = weight(_text_:subject in 4850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033217333 = score(doc=4850,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16812018 = queryWeight, product of:
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.04700564 = queryNorm
0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 4850, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4850)
0.029445495 = product of:
0.05889099 = sum of:
0.05889099 = weight(_text_:classification in 4850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05889099 = score(doc=4850,freq=10.0), product of:
0.14969917 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.04700564 = queryNorm
0.39339557 = fieldWeight in 4850, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4850)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Faceted classification is based on the core ideas that there are kinds or categories of concepts, and that compound, or non-elemental, concepts, which are ubiquitous in classification and subject annotation, are to be identified as being constructions of concepts of the different kinds. The categories of concepts are facets, and the individual concepts, which are instances of those facets, are foci. Usually, there are constraints on how the foci can be combined into the compound concepts. What is standard is that any combination of foci is permitted from kind-to-kind across facets, but that the foci within a facet are restricted in their use by virtue of being dependent on each other, either by being exclusive of each other or by bearing some kind of hierarchical relationship to each other. Thus faceted classification is typically considered to be a synthetic classification consisting of orthogonal facets which themselves are composed individually either of exclusive foci or of a hierarchy of foci. This paper addresses in particular this second exclusive-or-hierarchical foci condition. It evaluates the arguments for the condition and finds them not conclusive. It suggests that wider synthetic constructions should be allowed on foci within a facet.
