Search (63 results, page 1 of 4)

0.028786328 = product of:
  0.057572655 = sum of:
    0.02954614 = product of:
      0.05909228 = sum of:
        0.05909228 = weight(_text_:p in 3176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05909228 = score(doc=3176,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1239606 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034476474 = queryNorm
            0.47670212 = fieldWeight in 3176, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3176)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.028026516 = product of:
      0.05605303 = sum of:
        0.05605303 = weight(_text_:22 in 3176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05605303 = score(doc=3176,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.120730735 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034476474 = 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(2/4)

Date

6. 5.2017 18:46:22

Source

International classification. 7(1980) no.1, p.2-5

0.0189051 = product of:
  0.0756204 = sum of:
    0.0756204 = sum of:
      0.03825171 = weight(_text_:b in 4339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03825171 = score(doc=4339,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.12214884 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.034476474 = queryNorm
          0.31315655 = fieldWeight in 4339, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4339)
      0.03736869 = weight(_text_:22 in 4339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03736869 = score(doc=4339,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.120730735 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.034476474 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4339, 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=4339)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Pages

S.1-22

0.016541962 = product of:
  0.06616785 = sum of:
    0.06616785 = sum of:
      0.033470243 = weight(_text_:b in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.033470243 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.12214884 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.034476474 = queryNorm
          0.27401197 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
      0.032697603 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032697603 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.120730735 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.034476474 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3494, 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=3494)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Pages

S.22-36

0.011994304 = product of:
  0.023988608 = sum of:
    0.012310892 = product of:
      0.024621785 = sum of:
        0.024621785 = weight(_text_:p in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024621785 = score(doc=5562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1239606 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034476474 = queryNorm
            0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 5562, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5562)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.011677716 = product of:
      0.023355432 = sum of:
        0.023355432 = weight(_text_:22 in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023355432 = score(doc=5562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.120730735 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034476474 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5562, 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=5562)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 21(1995) no.2, S.19-22

0.011635179 = product of:
  0.023270357 = sum of:
    0.013928184 = product of:
      0.027856369 = sum of:
        0.027856369 = weight(_text_:p in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027856369 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1239606 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034476474 = queryNorm
            0.22471954 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.009342172 = product of:
      0.018684344 = sum of:
        0.018684344 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018684344 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.120730735 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034476474 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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

0.009705821 = product of:
  0.019411642 = sum of:
    0.009848714 = product of:
      0.019697428 = sum of:
        0.019697428 = weight(_text_:p in 2760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019697428 = score(doc=2760,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1239606 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034476474 = queryNorm
            0.15890071 = fieldWeight in 2760, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2760)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.009562927 = product of:
      0.019125855 = sum of:
        0.019125855 = weight(_text_:b in 2760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019125855 = score(doc=2760,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12214884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034476474 = queryNorm
            0.15657827 = fieldWeight in 2760, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2760)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Special classifications have been somewhat neglected in KO compared to general classifications. The methodology of constructing special classifications is important, however, also for the methodology of constructing general classification schemes. The methodology of constructing special classifications can be regarded as one among about a dozen approaches to domain analysis. The methodology of (special) classification in LIS has been dominated by the rationalistic facet-analytic tradition, which, however, neglects the question of the empirical basis of classification. The empirical basis is much better grasped by, for example, bibliometric methods. Even the combination of rational and empirical methods is insufficient. This presentation will provide evidence for the necessity of historical and pragmatic methods for the methodology of classification and will point to the necessity of analyzing "paradigms". The presentation covers the methods of constructing classifications from Ranganathan to the design of ontologies in computer science and further to the recent "paradigm shift" in classification research. 1. Introduction Classification of a subject field is one among about eleven approaches to analyzing a domain that are specific for information science and in my opinion define the special competencies of information specialists (Hjoerland, 2002a). Classification and knowledge organization are commonly regarded as core qualifications of librarians and information specialists. Seen from this perspective one expects a firm methodological basis for the field. This paper tries to explore the state-of-the-art conceming the methodology of classification. 2. Classification: Science or non-science? As it is part of the curriculum at universities and subject in scientific journals and conferences like ISKO, orte expects classification/knowledge organization to be a scientific or scholarly activity and a scientific field. However, very often when information specialists classify or index documents and when they revise classification system, the methods seem to be rather ad hoc. Research libraries or scientific databases may employ people with adequate subject knowledge. When information scientists construct or evaluate systems, they very often elicit the knowledge from "experts" (Hjorland, 2002b, p. 260). Mostly no specific arguments are provided for the specific decisions in these processes.

0.008809167 = product of:
  0.017618334 = sum of:
    0.010446139 = product of:
      0.020892277 = sum of:
        0.020892277 = weight(_text_:p in 2492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020892277 = score(doc=2492,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1239606 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034476474 = queryNorm
            0.16853966 = fieldWeight in 2492, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2492)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0071721957 = product of:
      0.014344391 = sum of:
        0.014344391 = weight(_text_:b in 2492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014344391 = score(doc=2492,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12214884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034476474 = queryNorm
            0.117433704 = fieldWeight in 2492, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2492)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Footnote

Rez. in: KO 35(2008) no.4, S.251-254 (B. Hjoerland): "The book is about the classification of chemical elements known as the periodical system. It is described as "one of the most potent icons in science [.] One sees periodic tables everywhere: in industrial labs, workshops, academic labs, and of course, lecture halls" (p. xiii). Among all taxonomies in all domains, there is probably none more respected and more useful than this one. As Scerri states (p. 25): The periodic table ranks as one of the most fruitful and unifying ideas in the whole of modern science, comparable perhaps with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. Unlike such theories as Newtonian mechanics, the periodic table has not been falsified by developments in modern physics but has evolved while remaining essentially unchanged. After evolving for nearly 150 years through the work of numerous individuals, the periodic table remains at the heart of chemistry. This is mainly because it is of immense practical benefit for making predictions about all manner of chemical and physical properties of the elements and possibilities for bond formation. The periodic system provides the basic criteria for organizing knowledge about all the material stuff in the entire universe. It is thus a model that anybody with interests in knowledge organization (KO) should know. Knowledge about the history, philosophy and status of the periodic system also provides important insight for knowledge organization in general. . . . Scerri's book demonstrates how one of the most important classification systems has evolved and what kinds of conceptualizations and classification criteria are at work in it. It is probably the best book about the best classification system ever constructed. It should belong to any library supporting teaching and research in knowledge organization."

0.008367561 = product of:
  0.033470243 = sum of:
    0.033470243 = product of:
      0.06694049 = sum of:
        0.06694049 = weight(_text_:b in 1781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06694049 = score(doc=1781,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12214884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034476474 = queryNorm
            0.54802394 = fieldWeight in 1781, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1781)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Rezensionsbeitrag zu Buchanan, B.: Theory of library classification

0.008367561 = product of:
  0.033470243 = sum of:
    0.033470243 = product of:
      0.06694049 = sum of:
        0.06694049 = weight(_text_:b in 1965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06694049 = score(doc=1965,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12214884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034476474 = queryNorm
            0.54802394 = fieldWeight in 1965, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1965)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.007006629 = product of:
  0.028026516 = sum of:
    0.028026516 = product of:
      0.05605303 = sum of:
        0.05605303 = weight(_text_:22 in 6404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05605303 = score(doc=6404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.120730735 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034476474 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.007006629 = product of:
  0.028026516 = sum of:
    0.028026516 = product of:
      0.05605303 = sum of:
        0.05605303 = weight(_text_:22 in 3773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05605303 = score(doc=3773,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.120730735 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034476474 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.0059768297 = product of:
  0.023907319 = sum of:
    0.023907319 = product of:
      0.047814637 = sum of:
        0.047814637 = weight(_text_:b in 1098) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047814637 = score(doc=1098,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12214884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034476474 = queryNorm
            0.3914457 = fieldWeight in 1098, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1098)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Type

b

0.0059768297 = product of:
  0.023907319 = sum of:
    0.023907319 = product of:
      0.047814637 = sum of:
        0.047814637 = weight(_text_:b in 1139) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047814637 = score(doc=1139,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12214884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034476474 = queryNorm
            0.3914457 = fieldWeight in 1139, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1139)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

¬La interdisciplinariedad y la transdisciplinariedad en la organización del conocimiento científico : actas del VIII Congreso ISKO-España, León, 18, 19 y 20 de Abril de 2007 : Interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in the organization of scientific knowledge. Ed.: B. Rodriguez Bravo u. M.L Alvite Diez

0.0057578925 = product of:
  0.02303157 = sum of:
    0.02303157 = product of:
      0.04606314 = sum of:
        0.04606314 = weight(_text_:p in 3262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04606314 = score(doc=3262,freq=28.0), product of:
            0.1239606 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034476474 = queryNorm
            0.371595 = fieldWeight in 3262, product of:
              5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
                28.0 = termFreq=28.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3262)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Rez. in: KO 36(2009) no.1, S.62-63 (K. La Barre): "This special issue of Axiomathes presents an ambitious dual agenda. It attempts to highlight aspects of facet analysis (as used in LIS) that are shared by cognate approaches in philosophy, psychology, linguistics and computer science. Secondarily, the issue aims to attract others to the study and use of facet analysis. The authors represent a blend of lifetime involvement with facet analysis, such as Vickery, Broughton, Beghtol, and Dahlberg; those with well developed research agendas such as Tudhope, and Priss; and relative newcomers such as Gnoli, Cheti and Paradisi, and Slavic. Omissions are inescapable, but a more balanced issue would have resulted from inclusion of at least one researcher from the Indian school of facet theory. Another valuable addition might have been a reaction to the issue by one of the chief critics of facet analysis. Potentially useful, but absent, is a comprehensive bibliography of resources for those wishing to engage in further study, that now lie scattered throughout the issue. Several of the papers assume relative familiarity with facet analytical concepts and definitions, some of which are contested even within LIS. Gnoli's introduction (p. 127-130) traces the trajectory, extensions and new developments of this analytico- synthetic approach to subject access, while providing a laundry list of cognate approaches that are similar to facet analysis. This brief essay and the article by Priss (p. 243-255) directly addresses this first part of Gnoli's agenda. Priss provides detailed discussion of facet-like structures in computer science (p. 245- 246), and outlines the similarity between Formal Concept Analysis and facets. This comparison is equally fruitful for researchers in computer science and library and information science. By bridging into a discussion of visualization challenges for facet display, further research is also invited. Many of the remaining papers comprehensively detail the intellectual heritage of facet analysis (Beghtol; Broughton, p. 195-198; Dahlberg; Tudhope and Binding, p. 213-215; Vickery). Beghtol's (p. 131-144) examination of the origins of facet theory through the lens of the textbooks written by Ranganathan's mentor W.C.B. Sayers (1881-1960), Manual of Classification (1926, 1944, 1955) and a textbook written by Mills A Modern Outline of Classification (1964), serves to reveal the deep intellectual heritage of the changes in classification theory over time, as well as Ranganathan's own influence on and debt to Sayers.
Several of the papers are clearly written as primers and neatly address the second agenda item: attracting others to the study and use of facet analysis. The most valuable papers are written in clear, approachable language. Vickery's paper (p. 145-160) is a clarion call for faceted classification and facet analysis. The heart of the paper is a primer for central concepts and techniques. Vickery explains the value of using faceted classification in document retrieval. Also provided are potential solutions to thorny interface and display issues with facets. Vickery looks to complementary themes in knowledge organization, such as thesauri and ontologies as potential areas for extending the facet concept. Broughton (p. 193-210) describes a rigorous approach to the application of facet analysis in the creation of a compatible thesaurus from the schedules of the 2nd edition of the Bliss Classification (BC2). This discussion of exemplary faceted thesauri, recent standards work, and difficulties encountered in the project will provide valuable guidance for future research in this area. Slavic (p. 257-271) provides a challenge to make faceted classification come 'alive' through promoting the use of machine-readable formats for use and exchange in applications such as Topic Maps and SKOS (Simple Knowledge Organization Systems), and as supported by the standard BS8723 (2005) Structured Vocabulary for Information Retrieval. She also urges designers of faceted classifications to get involved in standards work. Cheti and Paradisi (p. 223-241) outline a basic approach to converting an existing subject indexing tool, the Nuovo Soggetario, into a faceted thesaurus through the use of facet analysis. This discussion, well grounded in the canonical literature, may well serve as a primer for future efforts. Also useful for those who wish to construct faceted thesauri is the article by Tudhope and Binding (p. 211-222). This contains an outline of basic elements to be found in exemplar faceted thesauri, and a discussion of project FACET (Faceted Access to Cultural heritage Terminology) with algorithmically-based semantic query expansion in a dataset composed of items from the National Museum of Science and Industry indexed with AAT (Art and Architecture Thesaurus). This paper looks to the future hybridization of ontologies and facets through standards developments such as SKOS because of the "lightweight semantics" inherent in facets.
Two of the papers revisit the interaction of facets with the theory of integrative levels, which posits that the organization of the natural world reflects increasingly interdependent complexity. This approach was tested as a basis for the creation of faceted classifications in the 1960s. These contemporary treatments of integrative levels are not discipline-driven as were the early approaches, but instead are ontological and phenomenological in focus. Dahlberg (p. 161-172) outlines the creation of the ICC (Information Coding System) and the application of the Systematifier in the generation of facets and the creation of a fully faceted classification. Gnoli (p. 177-192) proposes the use of fundamental categories as a way to redefine facets and fundamental categories in "more universal and level-independent ways" (p. 192). Given that Axiomathes has a stated focus on "contemporary issues in cognition and ontology" and the following thesis: "that real advances in contemporary science may depend upon a consideration of the origins and intellectual history of ideas at the forefront of current research," this venue seems well suited for the implementation of the stated agenda, to illustrate complementary approaches and to stimulate research. As situated, this special issue may well serve as a bridge to a more interdisciplinary dialogue about facet analysis than has previously been the case."

0.0053307726 = product of:
  0.02132309 = sum of:
    0.02132309 = product of:
      0.04264618 = sum of:
        0.04264618 = weight(_text_:p in 4154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04264618 = score(doc=4154,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1239606 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034476474 = queryNorm
            0.34403014 = fieldWeight in 4154, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4154)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Inhalt: Richard P. Smiraglia: A Brief Introduction to Facets in Knowledge Organization / Kathryn La Barre: Interrogating Facet Theory: Decolonizing Knowledge Organization / Joseph T. Tennis: Never Facets Alone: The Evolving Thought and Persistent Problems in Ranganathan's Theories of Classification / M. P. Satija and Dong-Guen Oh: The DDC and the Knowledge Categories: Dewey did Faceting without Knowing It / Claudio Gnoli: Classifying Phenomena Part 3: Facets / Rick Szostak: Facet Analysis Without Facet Indicators / Elizabeth Milonas: An Examination of Facets within Search Engine Result Pages / Richard P. Smiraglia: Facets for Clustering and Disambiguation: The Domain Discourse of Facets in Knowledge Organization

0.0052230693 = product of:
  0.020892277 = sum of:
    0.020892277 = product of:
      0.041784555 = sum of:
        0.041784555 = weight(_text_:p in 3651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041784555 = score(doc=3651,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.1239606 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034476474 = queryNorm
            0.33707932 = fieldWeight in 3651, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3651)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper, presented at the Ottawa Conference an the Conceptual Basis of the Classification of Knowledge, in 1971, is one of Fairthorne's more perceptive works and deserves a wide audience, especially as it breaks new ground in classification theory. In discussing the notion of discourse, he makes a "distinction between what discourse mentions and what discourse is about" [emphasis added], considered as a "fundamental factor to the relativistic nature of bibliographic classification" (p. 360). A table of mathematical functions, for example, describes exactly something represented by a collection of digits, but, without a preface, this table does not fit into a broader context. Some indication of the author's intent ls needed to fit the table into a broader context. This intent may appear in a title, chapter heading, class number or some other aid. Discourse an and discourse about something "cannot be determined solely from what it mentions" (p. 361). Some kind of background is needed. Fairthorne further develops the theme that knowledge about a subject comes from previous knowledge, thus adding a temporal factor to classification. "Some extra textual criteria are needed" in order to classify (p. 362). For example, "documents that mention the same things, but are an different topics, will have different ancestors, in the sense of preceding documents to which they are linked by various bibliographic characteristics ... [and] ... they will have different descendants" (p. 363). The classifier has to distinguish between documents that "mention exactly the same thing" but are not about the same thing. The classifier does this by classifying "sets of documents that form their histories, their bibliographic world lines" (p. 363). The practice of citation is one method of performing the linking and presents a "fan" of documents connected by a chain of citations to past work. The fan is seen as the effect of generations of documents - each generation connected to the previous one, and all ancestral to the present document. Thus, there are levels in temporal structure-that is, antecedent and successor documents-and these require that documents be identified in relation to other documents. This gives a set of documents an "irrevocable order," a loose order which Fairthorne calls "bibliographic time," and which is "generated by the fact of continual growth" (p. 364). He does not consider "bibliographic time" to be an equivalent to physical time because bibliographic events, as part of communication, require delay. Sets of documents, as indicated above, rather than single works, are used in classification. While an event, a person, a unique feature of the environment, may create a class of one-such as the French Revolution, Napoleon, Niagara Falls-revolutions, emperors, and waterfalls are sets which, as sets, will subsume individuals and make normal classes.
The fan of past documents may be seen across time as a philosophical "wake," translated documents as a sideways relationship and future documents as another fan spreading forward from a given document (p. 365). The "overlap of reading histories can be used to detect common interests among readers," (p. 365) and readers may be classified accordingly. Finally, Fairthorne rejects the notion of a "general" classification, which he regards as a mirage, to be replaced by a citation-type network to identify classes. An interesting feature of his work lies in his linkage between old and new documents via a bibliographic method-citations, authors' names, imprints, style, and vocabulary - rather than topical (subject) terms. This is an indirect method of creating classes. The subject (aboutness) is conceived as a finite, common sharing of knowledge over time (past, present, and future) as opposed to the more common hierarchy of topics in an infinite schema assumed to be universally useful. Fairthorne, a mathematician by training, is a prolific writer an the foundations of classification and information. His professional career includes work with the Royal Engineers Chemical Warfare Section and the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE). He was the founder of the Computing Unit which became the RAE Mathematics Department.

0.004924357 = product of:
  0.019697428 = sum of:
    0.019697428 = product of:
      0.039394855 = sum of:
        0.039394855 = weight(_text_:p in 3253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039394855 = score(doc=3253,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1239606 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034476474 = queryNorm
            0.31780142 = fieldWeight in 3253, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3253)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.0047814636 = product of:
  0.019125855 = sum of:
    0.019125855 = product of:
      0.03825171 = sum of:
        0.03825171 = weight(_text_:b in 8276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03825171 = score(doc=8276,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12214884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034476474 = queryNorm
            0.31315655 = fieldWeight in 8276, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8276)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.0047814636 = product of:
  0.019125855 = sum of:
    0.019125855 = product of:
      0.03825171 = sum of:
        0.03825171 = weight(_text_:b in 1135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03825171 = score(doc=1135,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12214884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034476474 = queryNorm
            0.31315655 = fieldWeight in 1135, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1135)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

¬La interdisciplinariedad y la transdisciplinariedad en la organización del conocimiento científico : actas del VIII Congreso ISKO-España, León, 18, 19 y 20 de Abril de 2007 : Interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in the organization of scientific knowledge. Ed.: B. Rodriguez Bravo u. M.L Alvite Diez

0.0047814636 = product of:
  0.019125855 = sum of:
    0.019125855 = product of:
      0.03825171 = sum of:
        0.03825171 = weight(_text_:b in 3921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03825171 = score(doc=3921,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12214884 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034476474 = queryNorm
            0.31315655 = fieldWeight in 3921, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.542962 = idf(docFreq=3476, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3921)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)