Search (51 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × theme_ss:"Klassifikationstheorie: Elemente / Struktur"
  1. Dousa, T.M.: Categories and the architectonics of system in Julius Otto Kaiser's method of systematic indexing (2014) 0.05 
    0.053875998 = product of:
  0.107751995 = sum of:
    0.107751995 = sum of:
      0.07264894 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07264894 = score(doc=1418,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.3662626 = fieldWeight in 1418, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1418)
      0.03510305 = weight(_text_:22 in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03510305 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18145745 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1418, 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=1418)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Categories, or concepts of high generality representing the most basic kinds of entities in the world, have long been understood to be a fundamental element in the construction of knowledge organization systems (KOSs), particularly faceted ones. Commentators on facet analysis have tended to foreground the role of categories in the structuring of controlled vocabularies and the construction of compound index terms, and the implications of this for subject representation and information retrieval. Less attention has been paid to the variety of ways in which categories can shape the overall architectonic framework of a KOS. This case study explores the range of functions that categories took in structuring various aspects of an early analytico-synthetic KOS, Julius Otto Kaiser's method of Systematic Indexing (SI). Within SI, categories not only functioned as mechanisms to partition an index vocabulary into smaller groupings of terms and as elements in the construction of compound index terms but also served as means of defining the units of indexing, or index items, incorporated into an index; determining the organization of card index files and the articulation of the guide card system serving as a navigational aids thereto; and setting structural constraints to the establishment of cross-references between terms. In all these ways, Kaiser's system of categories contributed to the general systematicity of SI.
    Source
    Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik
  2. Dousa, T.M.; Ibekwe-SanJuan, F.: Epistemological and methodological eclecticism in the construction of knowledge organization systems (KOSs) : the case of analytico-synthetic KOSs (2014) 0.04 
    0.038523465 = product of:
  0.07704693 = sum of:
    0.07704693 = sum of:
      0.041943885 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041943885 = score(doc=1417,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.21146181 = fieldWeight in 1417, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1417)
      0.03510305 = weight(_text_:22 in 1417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03510305 = score(doc=1417,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18145745 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1417, 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=1417)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In recent years, Hjørland has developed a typology of basic epistemological approaches to KO that identifies four basic positions - empiricism, rationalism, historicism/hermeneutics, and pragmatism -with which to characterize the epistemological bases and methodological orientation of KOSs. Although scholars of KO have noted that the design of a single KOS may incorporate epistemological-methodological features from more than one of these approaches, studies of concrete examples of epistemologico-methodological eclecticism have been rare. In this paper, we consider the phenomenon of epistemologico-methodological eclecticism in one theoretically significant family of KOSs - namely analytico-synthetic, or faceted, KOSs - by examining two cases - Julius Otto Kaiser's method of Systematic Indexing (SI) and Brian Vickery's method of facet analysis (FA) for document classification. We show that both of these systems combined classical features of rationalism with elements of empiricism and pragmatism and argue that such eclecticism is the norm, rather than the exception, for such KOSs in general.
    Source
    Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik
  3. Qin, J.: Evolving paradigms of knowledge representation and organization : a comparative study of classification, XML/DTD and ontology (2003) 0.03 
    0.030818773 = product of:
  0.061637547 = sum of:
    0.061637547 = sum of:
      0.03355511 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03355511 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.16916946 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.028082438 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028082438 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18145745 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051817898 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The different points of views an knowledge representation and organization from various research communities reflect underlying philosophies and paradigms in these communities. This paper reviews differences and relations in knowledge representation and organization and generalizes four paradigms-integrative and disintegrative pragmatism and integrative and disintegrative epistemologism. Examples such as classification, XML schemas, and ontologies are compared based an how they specify concepts, build data models, and encode knowledge organization structures. 1. Introduction Knowledge representation (KR) is a term that several research communities use to refer to somewhat different aspects of the same research area. The artificial intelligence (AI) community considers KR as simply "something to do with writing down, in some language or communications medium, descriptions or pictures that correspond in some salient way to the world or a state of the world" (Duce & Ringland, 1988, p. 3). It emphasizes the ways in which knowledge can be encoded in a computer program (Bench-Capon, 1990). For the library and information science (LIS) community, KR is literally the synonym of knowledge organization, i.e., KR is referred to as the process of organizing knowledge into classifications, thesauri, or subject heading lists. KR has another meaning in LIS: it "encompasses every type and method of indexing, abstracting, cataloguing, classification, records management, bibliography and the creation of textual or bibliographic databases for information retrieval" (Anderson, 1996, p. 336). Adding the social dimension to knowledge organization, Hjoerland (1997) states that knowledge is a part of human activities and tied to the division of labor in society, which should be the primary organization of knowledge. Knowledge organization in LIS is secondary or derived, because knowledge is organized in learned institutions and publications. These different points of views an KR suggest that an essential difference in the understanding of KR between both AI and LIS lies in the source of representationwhether KR targets human activities or derivatives (knowledge produced) from human activities. This difference also decides their difference in purpose-in AI KR is mainly computer-application oriented or pragmatic and the result of representation is used to support decisions an human activities, while in LIS KR is conceptually oriented or abstract and the result of representation is used for access to derivatives from human activities.
    Date
    12. 9.2004 17:22:35
  4. Farradane, J.E.L.: ¬A scientific theory of classification and indexing : further considerations (1952) 0.03 
    0.02936072 = product of:
  0.05872144 = sum of:
    0.05872144 = product of:
      0.11744288 = sum of:
        0.11744288 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11744288 = score(doc=1655,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = queryNorm
            0.5920931 = fieldWeight in 1655, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1655)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
  5. Quinn, B.: Recent theoretical approaches in classification and indexing (1994) 0.03 
    0.029059576 = product of:
  0.05811915 = sum of:
    0.05811915 = product of:
      0.1162383 = sum of:
        0.1162383 = weight(_text_:indexing in 8276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1162383 = score(doc=8276,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = queryNorm
            0.5860202 = fieldWeight in 8276, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8276)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article is a selective review of recent studies in classification and indexing theory. A number of important problems are discussed, including subjectivity versus objectivity, theories of indexing, the theoretical role of automation, and theoretical approaches to a universal classification scheme. Interestingly, much of the work appears to have been done outside the United States. After reviewing the theoretical work itself, some possible reasons for the non-American origins of the work are explored
  6. Minnigh, L.D.: Chaos in informatie, onderwerpsontsluiting en kennisoverdracht : de rol van de wetenschappelijke bibliotheek (1993) 0.02 
    0.023727044 = product of:
  0.04745409 = sum of:
    0.04745409 = product of:
      0.09490818 = sum of:
        0.09490818 = weight(_text_:indexing in 6606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09490818 = score(doc=6606,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = queryNorm
            0.47848347 = fieldWeight in 6606, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6606)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Existing classification systems require constant expansion to accomodate new subject fields, while subject indexing techniques fail to display the relationship of subjects. Relational databases are currently being developed which will guide users through the differing levels of subjects, using the 'cartography of science'. Such developments will enable librarians to play a more interactive role in information retrieval and will have far-reaching consequences on the design of subject-indexing systems
  7. Grimaldi, T.: ¬L'indicizzazione dal punto di vista cognitivo (II) (1996) 0.02 
    0.023727044 = product of:
  0.04745409 = sum of:
    0.04745409 = product of:
      0.09490818 = sum of:
        0.09490818 = weight(_text_:indexing in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09490818 = score(doc=992,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = queryNorm
            0.47848347 = fieldWeight in 992, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=992)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    In relation to indexing, one of the chief implications of cognitive epistemology is the necessity for redefining knowledge representation concepts for information filing and retrieval purposes. Such a redefinition involves abandoning the traditional, hierarchical, closed-structure classification model. Considers the following in detail: a semiotic critique of classification principles; Ranganathan's classification theory; Ranganathan and cognitive epistemology; and some reflections on the DDC and the Bliss Bibliographic Classification
    Footnote
    Übers. des Titels: Indexing from the cognitive viewpoint (II)
  8. Advances in classification research. Vol.10 : Proceedings of the 10th ASIS SIG/CR Classification Research Workshop, held at the 62nd ASIS Annual Meeting Nov 1-5, 1999, Washington (2001) 0.02 
    0.02179468 = product of:
  0.04358936 = sum of:
    0.04358936 = product of:
      0.08717872 = sum of:
        0.08717872 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08717872 = score(doc=1586,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = queryNorm
            0.4395151 = fieldWeight in 1586, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1586)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    Enthält die Beiträge: DAVENPORT, E.: Implicit orders: documentary genres and organizational practice; ANDERSEN, J. u. F.S. CHRISTENSEN: Wittgenstein and indexing theory; OLSON, H.A.: Cultural discourses of classification: indigeous alternatives to the tradition of Aristotle, Dürkheim, and Foucault; FRÂNCU, V.: A universal classification system going through changes; JACOB, E.K. u. U. PRISS: Nontraditional indexing structures for the management of electronic resources; BROOKS, T.A.: Relevance auras: macro patterns and micro scatter; RUIZ, M.E. u. SRINIVASAN, P.: Combining machine learning and hierarchical indexing structures for text categorization; WEEDMAN, J.: Local practice and the growth of knowledge: decisions in subject access to digitized images
  9. Dousa, T.M.: Empirical observation, rational structures, and pragmatist aims : epistemology and method in Julius Otto Kaiser's theory of systematic indexing (2008) 0.02 
    0.02179468 = product of:
  0.04358936 = sum of:
    0.04358936 = product of:
      0.08717872 = sum of:
        0.08717872 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2508) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08717872 = score(doc=2508,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = queryNorm
            0.4395151 = fieldWeight in 2508, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2508)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    Hjoerland's typology of the epistemological positions underlying methods for designing KO systems recognizes four basic epistemological positions: empiricism, rationalism, historicism, and pragmatism. Application of this typology to close analysis of Julius Otto Kaiser's theory of systematic indexing shows that his epistemological and methodological positions were hybrid in nature. Kaiser's epistemology was primarily empiricist and pragmatist in nature, whereas his methodology was pragmatist in aim but rationalist in mechanics. Unexpected synergy between the pragmatist and rationalist elements of Kaiser's methodology is evidenced by his stated motivations for the admission of polyhierarchy into syndetic structure. The application of Hjørland's typology to similar analyses of other KO systems may uncover other cases of epistemological-methodological eclecticism and synergy.
    Object
    Kaisers systematic indexing
  10. Maniez, J.: ¬Des classifications aux thesaurus : du bon usage des facettes (1999) 0.02 
    0.021061828 = product of:
  0.042123657 = sum of:
    0.042123657 = product of:
      0.08424731 = sum of:
        0.08424731 = weight(_text_:22 in 6404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08424731 = score(doc=6404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18145745 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6404, 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=6404)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    1. 8.1996 22:01:00
  11. Maniez, J.: ¬Du bon usage des facettes : des classifications aux thésaurus (1999) 0.02 
    0.021061828 = product of:
  0.042123657 = sum of:
    0.042123657 = product of:
      0.08424731 = sum of:
        0.08424731 = weight(_text_:22 in 3773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08424731 = score(doc=3773,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18145745 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3773, 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=3773)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    1. 8.1996 22:01:00
  12. Foskett, D.J.: Systems theory and its relevance to documentary classification (2017) 0.02 
    0.021061828 = product of:
  0.042123657 = sum of:
    0.042123657 = product of:
      0.08424731 = sum of:
        0.08424731 = weight(_text_:22 in 3176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08424731 = score(doc=3176,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18145745 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3176, 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=3176)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    6. 5.2017 18:46:22
  13. Farradane, J.E.L.: ¬A scientific theory of classification and indexing and its practical applications (1950) 0.02 
    0.017795283 = product of:
  0.035590567 = sum of:
    0.035590567 = product of:
      0.07118113 = sum of:
        0.07118113 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07118113 = score(doc=1654,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = queryNorm
            0.3588626 = fieldWeight in 1654, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1654)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    A classification is a theory of the structure of knowledge. From a discussion of the nature of truth, it is held that scientific knowledge is the only knowledge which can be regarded as true. The method of induction from empirical data is therefore applied to the construction of a classification. Items of knowledge are divided into uniquely definable terms, called isolates, and the relations between them, called operators. It is shown that only four basic operators exist, expressing appurtenance, equivalence, reaction and causation; using symbols for these operators, all subjects can be analysed in a linear form called an analet. With the addition of the permissible permutations of such analets, formed according to simple rules, alphabetical arrangement of the first terms provide a complete, logical subject index. Examples are given, and possible difficulties are considered. A classification can then be constructed by selection of deductive relations, arranged in hierarchical form. The nature of possible classifications is discussed. It is claimed that such an inductively constructed classification is the only true representation of the structure of knowledge, and that these principles provide a simple technique for accurately and fully indexing and classifying any given set of data, with complete flexibility
  14. Ellis, D.; Vasconcelos, A.: Ranganathan and the Net : using facet analysis to search and organise the World Wide Web (1999) 0.02 
    0.017795283 = product of:
  0.035590567 = sum of:
    0.035590567 = product of:
      0.07118113 = sum of:
        0.07118113 = weight(_text_:indexing in 726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07118113 = score(doc=726,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = queryNorm
            0.3588626 = fieldWeight in 726, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=726)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This paper documents the continuing relevance of facet analysis as a technique for searching and organising WWW based materials. The 2 approaches underlying WWW searching and indexing - word and concept based indexing - are outlined. It is argued that facet analysis as an a posteriori approach to classification using words from the subject field as the concept terms in the classification derived represents an excellent approach to searching and organising the results of WWW searches using either search engines or search directories. Finally it is argued that the underlying philosophy of facet analysis is better suited to the disparate nature of WWW resources and searchers than the assumptions of contemporaray IR research.
  15. Moss, R.: Categories and relations : Origins of two classification theories (1964) 0.02 
    0.016777555 = product of:
  0.03355511 = sum of:
    0.03355511 = product of:
      0.06711022 = sum of:
        0.06711022 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06711022 = score(doc=1816,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = queryNorm
            0.3383389 = fieldWeight in 1816, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1816)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The resemblances between the categories of Aristotle and those of Ranganathan are shown. These categories are examined in the light of criticism made by Bertrand Russell and are shown to have no validity. Similar comparisons are made between the relations of Huma and Farradane. Farradane's work is a return to Hume, who is generally acknowledged as one of the founders of the British school of empirical philosophy which continues to Russell and beyond. In Russell's work lies the most promising line of development for information classification and indexing
  16. Esteban Navarro, M.A.: Fundamentos epistemologicos de la classificacion documental (1995) 0.02 
    0.016777555 = product of:
  0.03355511 = sum of:
    0.03355511 = product of:
      0.06711022 = sum of:
        0.06711022 = weight(_text_:indexing in 5547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06711022 = score(doc=5547,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = queryNorm
            0.3383389 = fieldWeight in 5547, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5547)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Explains knowledge organization from an interdisciplinary perspective considering the capacity of humans to order, classify and organise. Considers classification by selective and relational criteria as positive for information retrieval. Discusses the descriptive and reductionist concepts of document classification. Proposes a concept based on the observation of the analytical and synthetic intellectual process of indexing and classifying and a unique definition for all types of information centres and documentary languages
  17. Mai, J.E.: ¬The future of general classification (2003) 0.02 
    0.016777555 = product of:
  0.03355511 = sum of:
    0.03355511 = product of:
      0.06711022 = sum of:
        0.06711022 = weight(_text_:indexing in 5478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06711022 = score(doc=5478,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = queryNorm
            0.3383389 = fieldWeight in 5478, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5478)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Discusses problems related to accessing multiple collections using a single retrieval language. Surveys the concepts of interoperability and switching language. Finds that mapping between more indexing languages always will be an approximation. Surveys the issues related to general classification and contrasts that to special classifications. Argues for the use of general classifications to provide access to collections nationally and internationally.
  18. Broughton, V.: ¬The need for a faceted classification as the basis of all methods of information retrieval (2006) 0.01 
    0.014829404 = product of:
  0.029658807 = sum of:
    0.029658807 = product of:
      0.059317615 = sum of:
        0.059317615 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059317615 = score(doc=2874,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = queryNorm
            0.29905218 = fieldWeight in 2874, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2874)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
  19. Garcia Marco, F.J.: Contexto y determinantes funcionales de la clasificacion documental (1996) 0.01 
    0.01468036 = product of:
  0.02936072 = sum of:
    0.02936072 = product of:
      0.05872144 = sum of:
        0.05872144 = weight(_text_:indexing in 380) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05872144 = score(doc=380,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = queryNorm
            0.29604656 = fieldWeight in 380, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=380)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Considers classification in the context of the information retrieval chain, a communication process. Defines classification as an heuristic methodology, which is being improved through scientific methodology. It is also an indexing process, setting each document in a systematic order, in a predictable place and therefore able to be efficiently retrieved. Classification appears to be determined by 4 factors: the structure of the world of documents, a function of the world of knowledge; the classification tools that allow us to codify them; the way in which people create and use classifications; and the features of the information unit
  20. Vickery, B.C.: Systematic subject indexing (1985) 0.01 
    0.014529788 = product of:
  0.029059576 = sum of:
    0.029059576 = product of:
      0.05811915 = sum of:
        0.05811915 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05811915 = score(doc=3636,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.19835205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051817898 = queryNorm
            0.2930101 = fieldWeight in 3636, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3636)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Brian C. Vickery, Director and Professor, School of Library, Archive and Information Studies, University College, London, is a prolific writer on classification and information retrieval. This paper was one of the earliest to present initial efforts by the Classification Research Group (q.v.). In it he clearly outlined the need for classification in subject indexing, which, at the time he wrote, was not a commonplace understanding. In fact, some indexing systems were made in the first place specifically to avoid general classification systems which were out of date in all fast-moving disciplines, especially in the "hard" sciences. Vickery picked up Julia Pettee's work (q.v.) an the concealed classification in subject headings (1947) and added to it, mainly adopting concepts from the work of S. R. Ranganathan (q.v.). He had already published a paper an notation in classification, pointing out connections between notation, words, and the concepts which they represent. He was especially concerned about the structure of notational symbols as such symbols represented relationships among subjects. Vickery also emphasized that index terms cover all aspects of a subject so that, in addition to having a basis in classification, the ideal index system should also have standardized nomenclature, as weIl as show evidence of a systematic classing of elementary terms. The necessary linkage between system and terms should be one of a number of methods, notably:

Authors

Years

Languages

Types

  • a 44
  • m 5
  • s 3
  • el 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications