Search (53 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × theme_ss:"Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval"
  1. Guenther, R.S.: ¬The Library of Congress Classification in the USMARC format (1994) 0.04 
    0.042008284 = product of:
  0.08401657 = sum of:
    0.059705656 = weight(_text_:reference in 8864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059705656 = score(doc=8864,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18975449 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04664141 = queryNorm
        0.31464687 = fieldWeight in 8864, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8864)
    0.024310911 = product of:
      0.048621822 = sum of:
        0.048621822 = weight(_text_:services in 8864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048621822 = score(doc=8864,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1712379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04664141 = queryNorm
            0.28394312 = fieldWeight in 8864, 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=8864)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The paper reviews the development of the USMARC Format for Classification Data, a standard for communication of classification data in machine-readable form. It considers the uses for online classification schedules, both for technical services and reference functions and gives an overview of the format specification details of data elements used and of the structure of the records. The paper describes an experiment conducted at the Library of Congress to test the format as well as the development of the classification database encompassing the LCC schedules. Features of the classification system are given. The LoC will complete its conversion of the LCC in mid-1995
  2. Ferris, A.M.: If you buy it, will they use it? : a case study on the use of Classification web (2006) 0.02 
    0.023214173 = product of:
  0.09285669 = sum of:
    0.09285669 = sum of:
      0.048621822 = weight(_text_:services in 88) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048621822 = score(doc=88,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1712379 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04664141 = queryNorm
          0.28394312 = fieldWeight in 88, 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=88)
      0.04423487 = weight(_text_:22 in 88) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04423487 = score(doc=88,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16333027 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04664141 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 88, 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=88)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Source
    Library resources and technical services. 50(2006) no.2, S.129-137
  3. Riesthuis, G.J.A.: Decomposition of UDC-numbers and the text of the UDC Master Reference File (1998) 0.02 
    0.02110914 = product of:
  0.08443656 = sum of:
    0.08443656 = weight(_text_:reference in 399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08443656 = score(doc=399,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18975449 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04664141 = queryNorm
        0.4449779 = fieldWeight in 399, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=399)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Object
    UDC Master Reference File
  4. Ardo, A.; Lundberg, S.: ¬A regional distributed WWW search and indexing service : the DESIRE way (1998) 0.02 
    0.019897863 = product of:
  0.07959145 = sum of:
    0.07959145 = sum of:
      0.041675847 = weight(_text_:services in 4190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041675847 = score(doc=4190,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1712379 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04664141 = queryNorm
          0.2433798 = fieldWeight in 4190, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4190)
      0.037915602 = weight(_text_:22 in 4190) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037915602 = score(doc=4190,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16333027 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04664141 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4190, 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=4190)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Creates an open, metadata aware system for distributed, collaborative WWW indexing. The system has 3 main components: a harvester (for collecting information), a database (for making the collection searchable), and a user interface (for making the information available). all components can be distributed across networked computers, thus supporting scalability. The system is metadata aware and thus allows searches on several fields including title, document author and URL. Nordic Web Index (NWI) is an application using this system to create a regional Nordic Web-indexing service. NWI is built using 5 collaborating service points within the Nordic countries. The NWI databases can be used to build additional services
    Date
    1. 8.1996 22:08:06
  5. Chandler, A.; LeBlanc, J.: Exploring the potential of a virtual undergraduate library collection based on the hierarchical interface to LC Classification (2006) 0.02 
    0.019897863 = product of:
  0.07959145 = sum of:
    0.07959145 = sum of:
      0.041675847 = weight(_text_:services in 769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041675847 = score(doc=769,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1712379 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04664141 = queryNorm
          0.2433798 = fieldWeight in 769, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=769)
      0.037915602 = weight(_text_:22 in 769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037915602 = score(doc=769,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16333027 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04664141 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 769, 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=769)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Source
    Library resources and technical services. 50(2006) no.3, S.157-165
  6. Slavic, A.: On the nature and typology of documentary classifications and their use in a networked environment (2007) 0.02 
    0.019897863 = product of:
  0.07959145 = sum of:
    0.07959145 = sum of:
      0.041675847 = weight(_text_:services in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041675847 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1712379 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04664141 = queryNorm
          0.2433798 = fieldWeight in 780, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=780)
      0.037915602 = weight(_text_:22 in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037915602 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16333027 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04664141 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 780, 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=780)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Networked orientated standards for vocabulary publishing and exchange and proposals for terminological services and terminology registries will improve sharing and use of all knowledge organization systems in the networked information environment. This means that documentary classifications may also become more applicable for use outside their original domain of application. The paper summarises some characteristics common to documentary classifications and explains some terminological, functional and implementation aspects. The original purpose behind each classification scheme determines the functions that the vocabulary is designed to facilitate. These functions influence the structure, semantics and syntax, scheme coverage and format in which classification data are published and made available. The author suggests that attention should be paid to the differences between documentary classifications as these may determine their suitability for a certain purpose and may impose different requirements with respect to their use online. As we speak, many classifications are being created for knowledge organization and it may be important to promote expertise from the bibliographic domain with respect to building and using classification systems.
    Date
    22.12.2007 17:22:31
  7. Fast, K.; Leise, F.; Steckel, M.: Facets and controlled vocabularies : an annotated bibliography (2003) 0.02 
    0.01705876 = product of:
  0.06823504 = sum of:
    0.06823504 = weight(_text_:reference in 2900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06823504 = score(doc=2900,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18975449 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04664141 = queryNorm
        0.35959643 = fieldWeight in 2900, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2900)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    An online series of articles explaining controlled vocabularies and, in particular, faceted classification. It is not yet finished, but what they have covered is very well done, practical and informative, with useful advice and a full treatment. It is worth reading now, and when they actually get to performing facet analysis and making a faceted system, it will make a very useful reference.
  8. Fast, K.; Leise, F.; Steckel, M.: All about facets and controlled vocabularies (2002) 0.02 
    0.01705876 = product of:
  0.06823504 = sum of:
    0.06823504 = weight(_text_:reference in 5141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06823504 = score(doc=5141,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18975449 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04664141 = queryNorm
        0.35959643 = fieldWeight in 5141, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5141)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    An online series of articles explaining controlled vocabularies and, in particular, faceted classification. It is not yet finished, but what they have covered is very well done, practical and informative, with useful advice and a full treatment. It is worth reading now, and when they actually get to performing facet analysis and making a faceted system, it will make a very useful reference.
  9. Fast, K.; Leise, F.; Steckel, M.: What is a controlled vocabulary? (2002) 0.02 
    0.01705876 = product of:
  0.06823504 = sum of:
    0.06823504 = weight(_text_:reference in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06823504 = score(doc=2417,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18975449 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04664141 = queryNorm
        0.35959643 = fieldWeight in 2417, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2417)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    An online series of articles explaining controlled vocabularies and, in particular, faceted classification. It is not yet finished, but what they have covered is very well done, practical and informative, with useful advice and a full treatment. It is worth reading now, and when they actually get to performing facet analysis and making a faceted system, it will make a very useful reference.
  10. Fast, K.; Leise, F.; Steckel, M.: Creating a controlled vocabulary (2003) 0.02 
    0.01705876 = product of:
  0.06823504 = sum of:
    0.06823504 = weight(_text_:reference in 2461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06823504 = score(doc=2461,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18975449 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04664141 = queryNorm
        0.35959643 = fieldWeight in 2461, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2461)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    An online series of articles explaining controlled vocabularies and, in particular, faceted classification. It is not yet finished, but what they have covered is very well done, practical and informative, with useful advice and a full treatment. It is worth reading now, and when they actually get to performing facet analysis and making a faceted system, it will make a very useful reference.
  11. Fast, K.; Leise, F.; Steckel, M.: Synonym rings and authority files (2003) 0.02 
    0.01705876 = product of:
  0.06823504 = sum of:
    0.06823504 = weight(_text_:reference in 2468) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06823504 = score(doc=2468,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18975449 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04664141 = queryNorm
        0.35959643 = fieldWeight in 2468, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2468)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    An online series of articles explaining controlled vocabularies and, in particular, faceted classification. It is not yet finished, but what they have covered is very well done, practical and informative, with useful advice and a full treatment. It is worth reading now, and when they actually get to performing facet analysis and making a faceted system, it will make a very useful reference.
  12. Fast, K.; Leise, F.; Steckel, M.: Controlled vocabularies : a glosso-thesaurus (2003) 0.02 
    0.01705876 = product of:
  0.06823504 = sum of:
    0.06823504 = weight(_text_:reference in 2469) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06823504 = score(doc=2469,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18975449 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04664141 = queryNorm
        0.35959643 = fieldWeight in 2469, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2469)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    An online series of articles explaining controlled vocabularies and, in particular, faceted classification. It is not yet finished, but what they have covered is very well done, practical and informative, with useful advice and a full treatment. It is worth reading now, and when they actually get to performing facet analysis and making a faceted system, it will make a very useful reference.
  13. Walker, S.: Views on classification as a search tool on a computer (1991) 0.01 
    0.014926414 = product of:
  0.059705656 = sum of:
    0.059705656 = weight(_text_:reference in 4837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059705656 = score(doc=4837,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18975449 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04664141 = queryNorm
        0.31464687 = fieldWeight in 4837, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4837)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Classification numbers and shelf marks may be useful in online searching. Ways of using classification in online searching include: direct classification searching; use of classification as linking devices or pivots; and direct or indirect searching of classification schedules and indexes. Discusses each of these techniques, mainly in the context of library OPAC searching although they may be applied to other types of online retrieval systems. The use of classification numbers as pivots enabling online searchers to retrieve related references by means of automation searching of identical or related classification numbers is reviewed with reference to the OKAPI project; BLCMP project and the DDC online project
  14. Richmond, P.A.: Futuristic aspects of subject access (1983) 0.01 
    0.013891948 = product of:
  0.055567794 = sum of:
    0.055567794 = product of:
      0.11113559 = sum of:
        0.11113559 = weight(_text_:services in 107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11113559 = score(doc=107,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1712379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04664141 = queryNorm
            0.6490128 = fieldWeight in 107, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=107)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Library resources and technical services. 27(1983), S.88-93
  15. Svenonius, E.: Use of classification in online retrieval (1983) 0.01 
    0.013891948 = product of:
  0.055567794 = sum of:
    0.055567794 = product of:
      0.11113559 = sum of:
        0.11113559 = weight(_text_:services in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11113559 = score(doc=108,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1712379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04664141 = queryNorm
            0.6490128 = fieldWeight in 108, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=108)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Library resources and technical services. 27(1983), S.76-80
  16. Concise UNIMARC Classification Format : Draft 5 (20000125) (2000) 0.01 
    0.013891948 = product of:
  0.055567794 = sum of:
    0.055567794 = product of:
      0.11113559 = sum of:
        0.11113559 = weight(_text_:services in 4421) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11113559 = score(doc=4421,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1712379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04664141 = queryNorm
            0.6490128 = fieldWeight in 4421, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4421)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    http://www.bl.uk/services/bsds/marc/unimarc.html
  17. McKiernan, G.: Parallel universe : the organization of information elements and access in a World Wide Web (WWW) Virtual Library (1996) 0.01 
    0.012794068 = product of:
  0.051176272 = sum of:
    0.051176272 = weight(_text_:reference in 5184) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051176272 = score(doc=5184,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18975449 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04664141 = queryNorm
        0.2696973 = fieldWeight in 5184, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5184)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    For generations, libraries have facilitated access to information sources by the development and use of a wide range of appropriate organizational processes. Within a Web-based demonstration prototype, we have applied several established library procedures, principles and practices to enhance access to selected Internet resources in science and technology. In seeking to manage these sources, we have established defined collection, adopted an established library classification scheme as an organizational framework, and sought to stimulate the features and functions of a physical library collection and conventional reference sourcees. This paper describes the key components of this prototype, reviews research which supports its approach, and profiles suggested enhancements which could further facilitate identification, access and use of significant Internet and WWW resources
  18. Hill, J.S.: Online classification number access : some practical considerations (1984) 0.01 
    0.012638534 = product of:
  0.050554138 = sum of:
    0.050554138 = product of:
      0.101108275 = sum of:
        0.101108275 = weight(_text_:22 in 7684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.101108275 = score(doc=7684,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16333027 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04664141 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 7684, 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=7684)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Journal of academic librarianship. 10(1984), S.17-22
  19. National Seminar on Classification in the Digital Environment : Papers contributed to the National Seminar an Classification in the Digital Environment, Bangalore, 9-11 August 2001 (2001) 0.01 
    0.011689014 = product of:
  0.023378028 = sum of:
    0.01705876 = weight(_text_:reference in 2047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01705876 = score(doc=2047,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18975449 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04664141 = queryNorm
        0.08989911 = fieldWeight in 2047, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2047)
    0.006319267 = product of:
      0.012638534 = sum of:
        0.012638534 = weight(_text_:22 in 2047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012638534 = score(doc=2047,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16333027 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04664141 = queryNorm
            0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 2047, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2047)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    2. 1.2004 10:35:22
    Footnote
    SELVI (Knowledge Classification of Digital Information Materials with Special Reference to Clustering Technique) finds that it is essential to classify digital material since the amount of material that is becoming available is growing. Selvi suggests using automated classification to "group together those digital information materials or documents that are "most similar" (p. 65). This can be attained by using Cluster analysis methods. PRADHAN and THULASI (A Study of the Use of Classification and Indexing Systems by Web Resource Directories) compare and contrast the classificatory structures of Google, Yahoo, and Looksmart's directories and compare the directories to Dewey Decimal Classification, Library of Congress Classification and Colon Classification's classificatory structures. They find differentes between the directories' and the bibliographic classification systems' classificatory structures and principles. These differentes stem from the fact that bibliographic classification systems are used to "classify academic resources for the research community" (p. 83) and directories "aim to categorize a wider breath of information groups, entertainment, recreation, govt. information, commercial information" (p. 83). NEELAMEGHAN (Hierarchy, Hierarchical Relation and Hierarchical Arrangement) reviews the concept of hierarchy and the formation of hierarchical structures across a variety of domains. NEELAMEGHAN and PRADAD (Digitized Schemes for Subject Classification and Thesauri: Complementary Roles) demonstrate how thesaural relationships (NT, BT, and RT) can be applied to a classification scheme, the Colon Classification in this Gase. NEELAMEGHAN and ASUNDI (Metadata Framework for Describing Embodied Knowledge and Subject Content) propose to use the Generalized Facet Structure framework which is based an Ranganathan's General Theory of Knowledge Classification as a framework for describing the content of documents in a metadata element set for the representation of web documents. CHUDAMANI (Classified Catalogue as a Tool for Subject Based Information Retrieval in both Traditional and Electronic Library Environment) explains why the classified catalogue is superior to the alphabetic cata logue and argues that the same is true in the digital environment.
  20. Oberhauser, O.: Implementierung und Parametrisierung klassifikatorischer Recherchekomponenten im OPAC (2005) 0.01 
    0.011607086 = product of:
  0.046428345 = sum of:
    0.046428345 = sum of:
      0.024310911 = weight(_text_:services in 3353) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.024310911 = score(doc=3353,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1712379 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04664141 = queryNorm
          0.14197156 = fieldWeight in 3353, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3353)
      0.022117434 = weight(_text_:22 in 3353) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.022117434 = score(doc=3353,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16333027 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04664141 = queryNorm
          0.1354154 = fieldWeight in 3353, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3353)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Das in den letzten Jahren wiedererwachte Interesse an der klassifikatorischen Erschließung und Recherche hat sich allem Anschein nach noch nicht ausreichend bis zu den Herstellern integrierter Bibliothekssysteme herumgesprochen. Wie wäre es sonst zu erklären, dass im OPAC-Modul eines führenden Systems wie Aleph 500 so gut wie keine Features für klassifikationsbasierte Recherchen zu erblicken sind? Tatsächlich finden wir heute einen im Vergleich zum einstigen System Bibos kaum veränderten Zustand vor: Notationen eines oder mehrerer Klassifikationssysteme können in einer durch MAB dafür bestimmten Kategorie (700, nebst Indikatoren) katalogisiert und dann recherchiert bzw. angezeigt werden. Doch welcher Benutzer weiß schon, was diese Notationen im einzelnen bedeuten? Wer macht sich die Mühe, dies selbst herauszufinden, um dann danach zu recherchieren? Hier liegt im wesentlich dasselbe Problem vor, das schon dem systematischen Zettelkatalog anhaftete und ihn zu einem zwar mühevoll erstellten, aber wenig genutzten Rechercheinstrument machte, das nur dann (zwangsläufig) angenommen wurde, wenn ein verbaler Sachkatalog fehlte. Nun könnte eingewandt werden, dass im Vergleich zu früher unter Aleph 500 wenigstens das Aufblättern von Indizes möglich sei, sodass im OPAC ein Index für die vergebenen Notationen angeboten werden kann (bzw. mehrere solche Indizes bei Verwendung von mehr als nur einem Klassifikationssystem). Gewiss, doch was bringt dem Uneingeweihten das Aufblättern des Notationsindex - außer einer alphabetischen Liste von kryptischen Codes? Weiter könnte man einwenden, dass es im Aleph-500-OPAC die so genannten Suchdienste ("services") gibt, mithilfe derer von bestimmten Elementen einer Vollanzeige hypertextuell weiternavigiert werden kann. Richtig, doch damit kann man bloß wiederum den Index aufblättern oder alle anderen Werke anzeigen lassen, die dieselbe Notationen - also einen Code, dessen Bedeutung meist unbekannt ist - aufweisen. Wie populär mag dieses Feature beim Publikum wohl sein? Ein anderer Einwand wäre der Hinweis auf das inzwischen vom Hersteller angebotene Thesaurus-Modul, das vermutlich auch für Klassifikationssysteme eingesetzt werden könnte. Doch wie viele Bibliotheken unseres Verbundes waren bisher bereit, für dieses Modul, das man eigentlich als Bestandteil des Basissystems erwarten könnte, gesondert zu bezahlen? Schließlich mag man noch einwenden, dass es im Gegensatz zur Bibos-Zeit nun die Möglichkeit gibt, Systematiken und Klassifikationen als Normdateien zu implementieren und diese beim Retrieval für verbale Einstiege in die klassifikatorische Recherche oder zumindest für die Veranschaulichung der Klassenbenennungen in der Vollanzeige zu nutzen. Korrekt - dies ist möglich und wurde sogar einst für die MSC (Mathematics Subject Classification, auch bekannt als "AMS-Klassifikation") versucht. Dieses Projekt, das noch unter der Systemversion 11.5 begonnen wurde, geriet jedoch nach einiger Zeit ins Stocken und fand bedauerlicherweise nie seinen Weg in die folgende Version (14.2). Mag auch zu hoffen sein, dass es unter der neuen Version 16 wieder weitergeführt werden kann, so weist dieses Beispiel doch auf die grundsätzliche Problematik des Normdatei-Ansatzes (zusätzlicher Aufwand, Kontinuität) hin. Zudem lohnt sich die Implementierung einer eigenen Normdatei 4 wohl nur bei einem größeren bzw. komplexen Klassifikationssystem, wogegen man im Falle kleinerer Systematiken kaum daran denken würde.
    Source
    Mitteilungen der Vereinigung Österreichischer Bibliothekarinnen und Bibliothekare. 58(2005) H.1, S.22-37

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 47
  • d 6

Types

  • a 37
  • el 12
  • m 3
  • s 1
  • x 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications