Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.036901895 = product of:
  0.07380379 = sum of:
    0.07380379 = sum of:
      0.0386453 = weight(_text_:services in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0386453 = score(doc=3692,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19054317 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051899735 = queryNorm
          0.2028165 = fieldWeight in 3692, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3692)
      0.03515849 = weight(_text_:22 in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03515849 = score(doc=3692,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18174402 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051899735 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3692, 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=3692)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The death of Brian Vickery sees a great era of classification research coming towards an end. Born in Australia, he completed his schooling in England, before going up to Brasenose to read Chemistry just before the outbreak of the Second World War. Brian was never in the services, but after Oxford he worked as a chemist in the Royal Ordnance Factory from 1941-45. After the War he became a librarian at Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI). He was a delegate at the Royal Society Scientific Information Conference held in 1948. One of the offshoots of that conference was the formation of a small committee of scientists under the leadership of Professor J.D. Bernal, to make a study of library classification. After two years of discussions, they elicited the assistance of Jack Wells, then editor of the British National Bibliography, and Brian. They circularized a group of colleagues and convened a meeting in February 1952 which led to the formation of the Classification Research Group. As is well known, this Group, all practising librarians, were to exert a groundbreaking influence on the organization and retrieval of information.

Date

22. 7.2010 19:32:06

0.02461094 = product of:
  0.04922188 = sum of:
    0.04922188 = product of:
      0.09844376 = sum of:
        0.09844376 = weight(_text_:22 in 1012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09844376 = score(doc=1012,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18174402 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051899735 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 1012, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1012)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Extensions and corrections to the UDC. 22(2000), S.49-75

0.014063395 = product of:
  0.02812679 = sum of:
    0.02812679 = product of:
      0.05625358 = sum of:
        0.05625358 = weight(_text_:22 in 2289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05625358 = score(doc=2289,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18174402 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051899735 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2289, 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=2289)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 6.2004 19:22:56

0.013525856 = product of:
  0.027051711 = sum of:
    0.027051711 = product of:
      0.054103423 = sum of:
        0.054103423 = weight(_text_:services in 4638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054103423 = score(doc=4638,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19054317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051899735 = queryNorm
            0.28394312 = fieldWeight in 4638, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4638)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: Library Association Record 96(1994) no.12, S.685 (R. Sweeney); Indexer 19(1995) no.4, S.316-317 (M. Piggott); Library resources and technical services 40(1996) no.1, S.99-101 (S.J. Smith)

0.01230547 = product of:
  0.02461094 = sum of:
    0.02461094 = product of:
      0.04922188 = sum of:
        0.04922188 = weight(_text_:22 in 1899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04922188 = score(doc=1899,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18174402 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051899735 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1899, 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=1899)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Knowledge organization. 22(1995) no.2, S.64-69

0.00772906 = product of:
  0.01545812 = sum of:
    0.01545812 = product of:
      0.03091624 = sum of:
        0.03091624 = weight(_text_:services in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03091624 = score(doc=6089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19054317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051899735 = queryNorm
            0.1622532 = fieldWeight in 6089, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6089)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The genesis of the Group: In 1948, as part of the post-war renewal of library services in the United Kingdom, the Royal Society organized a Conference on Scientific Information.' What, at the time, must have seemed a minute part of the grand plan, but was later to have a transforming effect on the theory of knowledge organization throughout the remainder of the century, was the setting up of a standing committee of a small group of specialists to investigate the organization and retrieval of scientific information. In 1950, the secretary of that committee, J.D. Bernal, suggested that it might be appropriate to ask a group of librarians to do a study of the problem. After a couple of years of informal discussion it was agreed, in February 1952, to form a Classification Research Group - the CRG as it has become known to subsequent generations. The Group published a brief corporate statement of its views in the Library Association Record in June 1953 and submitted a memorandum to the Library Association Research Committee in May 1955, entitled "The need for a faceted classification as the basis of all methods of information retrieval". This memorandum was published in the proceedings of what has become known as the "Dorking Conference" in 1957. Of the original fifteen members, four still belong to the Group, three of whom are in regular attendance: Eric Coates, Douglas Foskett and Jack Mills. Brian Vickery ceased attending regularly in the 1960s but has retained his interest in their doings: he was present at the 150th celebratory meeting in 1984 and played an active part in the "Dorking revisited" conference held in 1997. The stated aim of the Group was 'To review the basic principles of bibliographic classification, unhampered by allegiance to any particular published scheme' and it can truly be stated that the work of its members has had a fundamental influence on the teaching and practice of information retrieval. It is paradoxical that this collection of people has exerted such a strong theoretical sway because their aims were from the outset and remain essentially practical. This fact is sometimes overlooked in the literature on knowledge organization: there is a tendency to get carried away, and for researchers of today to concentrate so hard on what might be that they overlook what is needed, useful and practical - the entire objective of any retrieval system.

0.00772906 = product of:
  0.01545812 = sum of:
    0.01545812 = product of:
      0.03091624 = sum of:
        0.03091624 = weight(_text_:services in 2764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03091624 = score(doc=2764,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19054317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051899735 = queryNorm
            0.1622532 = fieldWeight in 2764, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2764)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Prior to the OPAC many institutions devised classifications to suit their special needs. Others expanded or altered general schemes to accommodate specific approaches. A driving force in the creation of these classifications was the Classification Research Group, celebrating its golden jubilee in 2002, whose work created a framework and body of principles that remain valid for the retrieval needs of today. The paper highlights some of these special schemes and highlights the fundamental principles which remain valid. 1. Introduction The distinction between a general and a special classification scheme is made frequently in the textbooks, but is one that it is sometimes difficult to draw. The Library of Congress classification could be described as the special classification par excellence. Normally, however, a special classification is taken to be one that is restricted to a specific subject, and quite often used in one specific context only, either a library or a bibliographic listing or for a specific purpose such as a search engine and it is in this sense that I propose to examine some of these schemes. Today, there is a widespread preference for searching an words as a supplement to the use of a standard system, usually the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC). This is enhanced by the ability to search documents full-text in a computerized environment, a situation that did not exist 20 or 30 years ago. Today's situation is a great improvement in many ways, but it does depend upon the words used by the author and the searcher corresponding, and often presupposes the use of English. In libraries, the use of co-operative services and precatalogued records already provided with classification data has also spelt the demise of the special scheme. In many instances, the survival of a special classification depends upon its creaior and, with the passage of time, this becomes inevitably more precarious.