Search (233 results, page 1 of 12)

0.065790884 = product of:
  0.15351206 = sum of:
    0.02348779 = weight(_text_:of in 5659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02348779 = score(doc=5659,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 5659, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5659)
    0.07727726 = weight(_text_:congress in 5659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07727726 = score(doc=5659,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20946044 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.36893487 = fieldWeight in 5659, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5659)
    0.052747004 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052747004 = score(doc=5659,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.30480546 = fieldWeight in 5659, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5659)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)

Abstract

This proposed new classification scheme is based on two main elements: hierarchism and binary theory. Hence, it is called Universal Binary Classification (UBC). Some advantages of this classification are highlighted including are subject heading development, construction of a thesaurus and all terms with meaningful features arranged in tabular form that can help researchers, through a semantic process, to find what they need. This classification scheme is fully consistent with the classification of knowledge. The classification of knowledge is also based on hierarchism and binary principle. Finally, a survey on randomly selected books in McLennan Library of McGill University is presented to compare the codes of this new classification with the currently employed Library of Congress Classification (LCC) numbers in the discipline of Library and Information Sciences.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 38(2004) no.2, S.xx-xx

0.055834927 = product of:
  0.1302815 = sum of:
    0.018832127 = weight(_text_:of in 5517) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018832127 = score(doc=5517,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 5517, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5517)
    0.06623765 = weight(_text_:congress in 5517) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06623765 = score(doc=5517,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20946044 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.31622988 = fieldWeight in 5517, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5517)
    0.045211717 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5517) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045211717 = score(doc=5517,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.26126182 = fieldWeight in 5517, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5517)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)

Abstract

The authors describe the difficulties of translating classifications from a source language and culture to another language and culture. To demonstrate these problems, kinship terms and concepts from native speakers of fourteen languages were collected and analyzed to find differences between their terms and structures and those used in English. Using the representations of kinship terms in the Library of Congress Classification (LCC) and the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) as examples, the authors identified the source of possible lack of mapping between the domain of kinship in the fourteen languages studied and the LCC and DDC. Finally, some preliminary suggestions for how to make translated classifications more linguistically and culturally hospitable are offered.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 37(2003) nos.1/2, S.33-47

0.04416842 = product of:
  0.10305965 = sum of:
    0.018981 = weight(_text_:of in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018981 = score(doc=7242,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 7242, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7242)
    0.06028229 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06028229 = score(doc=7242,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.3483491 = fieldWeight in 7242, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7242)
    0.023796353 = product of:
      0.047592707 = sum of:
        0.047592707 = weight(_text_:22 in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047592707 = score(doc=7242,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15376249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043909185 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7242, 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=7242)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)

Abstract

Reports results of a comparative study of 3 classification schemes: LCC, DDC and NLM Classification to determine their effectiveness in classifying materials on health insurance. Examined 2 hypotheses: that there would be no differences in the scatter of the 3 classification schemes; and that there would be overlap between all 3 schemes but no difference in the classes into which the subject was placed. There was subject scatter in all 3 classification schemes and litlle overlap between the 3 systems

Date

22. 4.1997 21:10:19

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 23(1996) no.2, S.89-104

0.032902878 = product of:
  0.11516006 = sum of:
    0.026843186 = weight(_text_:of in 833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026843186 = score(doc=833,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.39093933 = fieldWeight in 833, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=833)
    0.08831687 = weight(_text_:congress in 833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08831687 = score(doc=833,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20946044 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.42163986 = fieldWeight in 833, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=833)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

This article explores the connections between Melvil Dewey and Hegelianism and Charles Cutter and the Scottish Common Sense philosophers. It traces the practice of hierarchy from these philosophical influences to Dewey and Cutter and their legacy to today's Dewey Decimal Classification and Library of Congress Subject Headings. The ubiquity of hierarchy is linked to Dewey's and Cutter's metaphor of organizing the mob of information into an orderly army using the tool of logic.

Footnote

Artikel in einem Themenheft: The philosophy of information

0.03288014 = product of:
  0.115080476 = sum of:
    0.02465704 = weight(_text_:of in 318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02465704 = score(doc=318,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 318, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=318)
    0.090423435 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.090423435 = score(doc=318,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.52252364 = fieldWeight in 318, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=318)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 4(1983) no.1, S.11-27

0.032109376 = product of:
  0.11238281 = sum of:
    0.016776992 = weight(_text_:of in 423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016776992 = score(doc=423,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 423, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=423)
    0.09560581 = weight(_text_:congress in 423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09560581 = score(doc=423,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.20946044 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.45643854 = fieldWeight in 423, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=423)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The Library of Congress is a federal institution that occupies a critical space where medical, social science, political, literary, and other discourses are collected, arranged, and disseminated to Congress and the public. LC plays a vital part in discipline creation and maintenance, as it actively reproduces specific discourses, while silencing others, such as those from the humanities, social sciences, and the general public. Alternatively, social tagging seems to disregard conventions of disciplinarity and allows much more diversity of representations. Tagging may provide important insight for organizing materials in research libraries, as choices between single disciplines are no longer necessary and voices from various fields and audiences can name resources using their own terms, whether they prefer medical/technical jargon or everyday words. As the academy moves more toward interdisciplinary/transdisciplinary studies and aims to find the intersections across political, social, scientific, and cultural phenomena, the implications and effects of library organization based on classes and subjects needs to be interrogated.

Content

Beitrag aus einem Themenheft zu den Proceedings of the 2nd Milwaukee Conference on Ethics in Information Organization, June 15-16, 2012, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Hope A. Olson, Conference Chair. Vgl.: http://www.ergon-verlag.de/isko_ko/downloads/ko_39_2012_5_i.pdf.

0.030999692 = product of:
  0.108498916 = sum of:
    0.02324688 = weight(_text_:of in 6929) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02324688 = score(doc=6929,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 6929, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6929)
    0.08525203 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 6929) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08525203 = score(doc=6929,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.49264002 = fieldWeight in 6929, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6929)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Classic classification schemes are uni-dimensional, with few exceptions. One of the challenges of distance education and new learning strategies is that the proliferation of course work defies the traditional categorization. The rigidity of most present classification schemes does not mesh well with the burgeoning fluidity of the academic environment. One solution is a return to a largely forgotten area of study - classification theory. Some suggestions for exploration are nonmonotonic logic systems, neural network models, and non-library models.

Footnote

Beitrag eines Themenheftes "Cataloging and classification: trends, transformations, teaching, and training."

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 24(1997) nos.1/2, S.97-112

0.030559886 = product of:
  0.0713064 = sum of:
    0.018757246 = weight(_text_:of in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018757246 = score(doc=5562,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 5562, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5562)
    0.03767643 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03767643 = score(doc=5562,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.21771818 = fieldWeight in 5562, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5562)
    0.014872721 = product of:
      0.029745443 = sum of:
        0.029745443 = weight(_text_:22 in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029745443 = score(doc=5562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15376249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043909185 = 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)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)

Abstract

For my segment of this program I'd like to focus on some basic qualities of classification schemes. These qualities are critical to our ability to truly organize knowledge for access. As I see it, there are at least five qualities of note. The first one of these properties that I want to talk about is "authoritative." By this I mean standardized, but I mean more than standardized with a built in consensus-building process. A classification scheme constructed by a collaborative, consensus-building process carries the approval, and the authority, of the discipline groups that contribute to it and that it affects... The next property of classification systems is "expandable," living, responsive, with a clear locus of responsibility for its continuous upkeep. The worst thing you can do with a thesaurus, or a classification scheme, is to finish it. You can't ever finish it because it reflects ongoing intellectual activity... The third property is "intuitive." That is, the system has to be approachable, it has to be transparent, or at least capable of being transparent. It has to have an underlying logic that supports the classification scheme but doesn't dominate it... The fourth property is "organized and logical." I advocate very strongly, and agree with Lois Chan, that classification must be based on a rule-based structure, on somebody's world-view of the syndetic structure... The fifth property is "universal" by which I mean the classification scheme needs be useable by any specific system or application, and be available as a language for multiple purposes.

Source

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

0.02789094 = product of:
  0.09761828 = sum of:
    0.02034102 = weight(_text_:of in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02034102 = score(doc=6091,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
    0.07727726 = weight(_text_:congress in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07727726 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20946044 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.36893487 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Arguing that an established technical terminology is crucial to the development of a discipline, and that classification terminology is neither well settled nor widely used by its exponents, this paper provides an explanation of some of the concepts generally accepted by classification theorists. In particular, the elaborate terminology generated by S.R. Ranganathan is examined. Definitions are provided for numerous concepts, including "classification"; "characteristics" and "attributes"; the genus-species relationship; the types of classes (canonical, systems, special, and environmental main classes); the kinds of subject (basic, compound, complex); as well as concepts such as facets, isolates, arrays, and chains. Comparisons between different classification systems, specifically the Dewey Decimal Classification, Colon Classification, and Library of Congress Classification, are also made

0.021920092 = product of:
  0.07672032 = sum of:
    0.016438028 = weight(_text_:of in 5478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016438028 = score(doc=5478,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.23940048 = fieldWeight in 5478, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5478)
    0.06028229 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06028229 = score(doc=5478,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.3483491 = fieldWeight in 5478, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5478)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 37(2003) nos.1/2, S.3-12

0.020522218 = product of:
  0.07182776 = sum of:
    0.027669324 = weight(_text_:of in 3621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027669324 = score(doc=3621,freq=68.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.40297103 = fieldWeight in 3621, product of:
          8.246211 = tf(freq=68.0), with freq of:
            68.0 = termFreq=68.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3621)
    0.044158436 = weight(_text_:congress in 3621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044158436 = score(doc=3621,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20946044 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.21081993 = fieldWeight in 3621, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3621)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Henry Evelyn Bliss (1870-1955) devoted several decades of his life to the study of classification and the development of the Bibliographic Classification scheme while serving as a librarian in the College of the City of New York. In the course of the development of the Bibliographic Classification, Bliss developed a body of classification theory published in a number of articles and books, among which the best known are The Organization of Knowledge and the System of the Sciences (1929), Organization of Knowledge in Libraries and the Subject Approach to Books (1933; 2nd ed., 1939), and the lengthy preface to A Bibliographic Classification (Volumes 1-2, 1940; 2nd ed., 1952). In developing the Bibliographic Classification, Bliss carefully established its philosophical and theoretical basis, more so than was attempted by the makers of other classification schemes, with the possible exception of S. R. Ranganathan (q.v.) and his Colon Classification. The basic principles established by Bliss for the Bibliographic Classification are: consensus, collocation of related subjects, subordination of special to general and gradation in specialty, and the relativity of classes and of classification (hence alternative location and alternative treatment). In the preface to the schedules of A Bibliographic Classification, Bliss spells out the general principles of classification as weIl as principles specifically related to his scheme. The first volume of the schedules appeared in 1940. In 1952, he issued a second edition of the volume with a rewritten preface, from which the following excerpt is taken, and with the addition of a "Concise Synopsis," which is also included here to illustrate the principles of classificatory structure. In the excerpt reprinted below, Bliss discusses the correlation between classes, concepts, and terms, as weIl as the hierarchical structure basic to his classification scheme. In his discussion of cross-classification, Bliss recognizes the "polydimensional" nature of classification and the difficulties inherent in the two-dimensional approach which is characteristic of linear classification. This is one of the earliest works in which the multidimensional nature of classification is recognized. The Bibliographic Classification did not meet with great success in the United States because the Dewey Decimal Classification and the Library of Congress Classification were already weIl ensconced in American libraries by then. Nonetheless, it attracted considerable attention in the British Commonwealth and elsewhere in the world. A committee was formed in Britain which later became the Bliss Classification Association. A faceted edition of the scheme has been in preparation under the direction of J. Mills and V. Broughton. Several parts of this new edition, entitled Bliss Bibliographic Classification, have been published.

Source

Theory of subject analysis: a sourcebook. Ed.: L.M. Chan, et al

0.01918008 = product of:
  0.067130275 = sum of:
    0.014383274 = weight(_text_:of in 510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014383274 = score(doc=510,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.20947541 = fieldWeight in 510, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=510)
    0.052747004 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052747004 = score(doc=510,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.30480546 = fieldWeight in 510, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=510)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Library patrons have innate expectations about how documents should be arranged. Useful classification schemes are those which conform to these expectations and are thereby psychologically comfortable. All schemes necessarily deviate from these expectations, but not to the same degree. The greater the divergence from this mental standard with a scheme, the greater the psychological discomfort the patron will experience and the less useful the patron will find it. Using as an example the discipline of anthropology, this article develops a measure of the deviation of library classifications from collocation in mental space

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 13(1991) no.2, S.23-43

0.01901867 = product of:
  0.06656534 = sum of:
    0.021353623 = weight(_text_:of in 1766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021353623 = score(doc=1766,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 1766, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1766)
    0.045211717 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 1766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045211717 = score(doc=1766,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.26126182 = fieldWeight in 1766, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1766)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to clarify the ontological and epistemological basis of classification. Design/methodology/approach - Attention is drawn to a 1785 article on abstraction by Thomas Reid and the contents and theories of the article are explained. The Reid article both provides a sound approach to classification and is interesting historically as it influenced the classification pioneer Charles Ammi Cutter who, in turn, is responsible for much of the modern theory of functional bibliography. Reid's account is supplemented by brief descriptions of fallibilism and fuzziness. An associated view, Aristotelian essentialism is explained and criticized. Some observations are offered on the role of prototypes in classification and on the monothetic-polythetic distinction. Findings - Reid's theories, suitably embedded in fallibilism and augmented with a respect for truth, provide a sound ontological and epistemological basis for classification. Originality/value - Reid's essay, together with an appreciation of fallibility and determinate and indeterminate properties, amount to a good basic theoretical foundation for cataloging.

Source

Journal of documentation. 69(2013) no.4, S.507-522

0.018298242 = product of:
  0.06404384 = sum of:
    0.018832127 = weight(_text_:of in 5516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018832127 = score(doc=5516,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 5516, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5516)
    0.045211717 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045211717 = score(doc=5516,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17305137 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.26126182 = fieldWeight in 5516, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5516)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

This paper addresses the process of adapting to a particular culture or context a classification that has grown out of western culture to become a global standard. The authors use a project that adapts DDC for use in a feminist/women's issues context to demonstrate an approach that works. The project is particularly useful as an interdisciplinary example. Discussion consists of four parts: (1) definition of the problem indicating the need for adaptation and efforts to date; (2) description of the methodology developed for creating an expansion; (3) description of the interface developed for actually doing the work, with its potential for a distributed group to work on it together (could even be internationally distributed); and (4) generalization of how the methodology could be used for particular contexts by country, ethnicity, perspective or other defining factors.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 37(2003) nos.1/2, S.13-31

0.017867632 = product of:
  0.06253671 = sum of:
    0.018378275 = weight(_text_:of in 2764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018378275 = score(doc=2764,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.26765788 = fieldWeight in 2764, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2764)
    0.044158436 = weight(_text_:congress in 2764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044158436 = score(doc=2764,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20946044 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.21081993 = fieldWeight in 2764, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2764)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

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

Source

Challenges in knowledge representation and organization for the 21st century: Integration of knowledge across boundaries. Proceedings of the 7th ISKO International Conference Granada, Spain, July 10-13, 2002. Ed.: M. López-Huertas

0.016130384 = product of:
  0.05645634 = sum of:
    0.023337513 = weight(_text_:of in 2072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023337513 = score(doc=2072,freq=86.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.33988333 = fieldWeight in 2072, product of:
          9.273619 = tf(freq=86.0), with freq of:
            86.0 = termFreq=86.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2072)
    0.033118825 = weight(_text_:congress in 2072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033118825 = score(doc=2072,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20946044 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.15811494 = fieldWeight in 2072, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2072)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

This volume deals with both theoretical and empirical research in classification and encompasses universal classification systems, special classification systems, thesauri and the place of classification in a broad spectrum of document and information systems. Papers fall into one or three major areas as follows: 1) general principles and policies 2) structure and logic in classification; and empirical investigation; classification in the design of various types of document/information systems. The papers originate from the ISCCR '91 conference and have been selected according to the following criteria: relevance to the conference theme; importance of the topic in the representation and organization of knowledge; quality; and originality in terms of potential contribution to research and new knowledge.

Content

Enthält die Beiträge: SVENONIUS, E.: Classification: prospects, problems, and possibilities; BEALL, J.: Editing the Dewey Decimal Classification online: the evolution of the DDC database; BEGHTOL, C.: Toward a theory of fiction analysis for information storage and retrieval; CRAVEN, T.C.: Concept relation structures and their graphic display; FUGMANN, R.: Illusory goals in information science research; GILCHRIST, A.: UDC: the 1990's and beyond; GREEN, R.: The expression of syntagmatic relationships in indexing: are frame-based index languages the answer?; HUMPHREY, S.M.: Use and management of classification systems for knowledge-based indexing; MIKSA, F.L.: The concept of the universe of knowledge and the purpose of LIS classification; SCOTT, M. u. A.F. FONSECA: Methodology for functional appraisal of records and creation of a functional thesaurus; ALBRECHTSEN, H.: PRESS: a thesaurus-based information system for software reuse; AMAESHI, B.: A preliminary AAT compatible African art thesaurus; CHATTERJEE, A.: Structures of Indian classification systems of the pre-Ranganathan era and their impact on the Colon Classification; COCHRANE, P.A.: Indexing and searching thesauri, the Janus or Proteus of information retrieval; CRAVEN, T.C.: A general versus a special algorithm in the graphic display of thesauri; DAHLBERG, I.: The basis of a new universal classification system seen from a philosophy of science point of view: DRABENSTOTT, K.M., RIESTER, L.C. u. B.A.DEDE: Shelflisting using expert systems; FIDEL, R.: Thesaurus requirements for an intermediary expert system; GREEN, R.: Insights into classification from the cognitive sciences: ramifications for index languages; GROLIER, E. de: Towards a syndetic information retrieval system; GUENTHER, R.: The USMARC format for classification data: development and implementation; HOWARTH, L.C.: Factors influencing policies for the adoption and integration of revisions to classification schedules; HUDON, M.: Term definitions in subject thesauri: the Canadian literacy thesaurus experience; HUSAIN, S.: Notational techniques for the accomodation of subjects in Colon Classification 7th edition: theoretical possibility vis-à-vis practical need; KWASNIK, B.H. u. C. JORGERSEN: The exploration by means of repertory grids of semantic differences among names of official documents; MICCO, M.: Suggestions for automating the Library of Congress Classification schedules; PERREAULT, J.M.: An essay on the prehistory of general categories (II): G.W. Leibniz, Conrad Gesner; REES-POTTER, L.K.: How well do thesauri serve the social sciences?; REVIE, C.W. u. G. SMART: The construction and the use of faceted classification schema in technical domains; ROCKMORE, M.: Structuring a flexible faceted thsaurus record for corporate information retrieval; ROULIN, C.: Sub-thesauri as part of a metathesaurus; SMITH, L.C.: UNISIST revisited: compatibility in the context of collaboratories; STILES, W.G.: Notes concerning the use chain indexing as a possible means of simulating the inductive leap within artificial intelligence; SVENONIUS, E., LIU, S. u. B. SUBRAHMANYAM: Automation in chain indexing; TURNER, J.: Structure in data in the Stockshot database at the National Film Board of Canada; VIZINE-GOETZ, D.: The Dewey Decimal Classification as an online classification tool; WILLIAMSON, N.J.: Restructuring UDC: problems and possibilies; WILSON, A.: The hierarchy of belief: ideological tendentiousness in universal classification; WILSON, B.F.: An evaluation of the systematic botany schedule of the Universal Decimal Classification (English full edition, 1979); ZENG, L.: Research and development of classification and thesauri in China; CONFERENCE SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Footnote

Rez. in: International classification 19(1992) no.4, S.228-229 (B.C. Vickery); Journal of classification 11(1994) no.2, S.255-256 (W. Gödert)

LCSH

Knowledge, Theory of / Congresses

Subject

Knowledge, Theory of / Congresses

0.015214633 = product of:
  0.053251214 = sum of:
    0.020132389 = weight(_text_:of in 3640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020132389 = score(doc=3640,freq=64.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 3640, product of:
          8.0 = tf(freq=64.0), with freq of:
            64.0 = termFreq=64.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3640)
    0.033118825 = weight(_text_:congress in 3640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033118825 = score(doc=3640,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20946044 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.15811494 = fieldWeight in 3640, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3640)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

This classic paper presents the reasoning behind the research undertaken by the Classification Research Group in London, beginning in 1952 and producing, by 1955, the direction in which the Group's efforts were to go in the next thirty years. The Group's original purpose was to review the basic principles of indexing and classification without committing itself to any existing system. It began by uncovering - among existing systems such as indexes, classifications, automatic selectors, and other information retrieval systems - the steps in the process by means of which a search was performed. The Group went over this very carefully, identifying parts of the process each step of the way. At the time this work was performed systems such as UNITERMS, which did not survive, and other alphabetical coordinated indexes, mainly experimental, were a dime a dozen. Classification to most librarians meant Dewey and the Library of Congress systems, both of which have very serious shortcomings from an intellectual point of view. The Group finally came to the conclusion that a classification of knowledge was necessary for constructing any successful retrieval system. The question then became one of deciding which kind of classification system. The members identified ten unsatisfactory features of existing systems. In fact, they could not find any general class schedule that either was satisfactory or could be made satisfactory. Obviously then, a new system had to be made. The question became one of how to do this. Existing theories did not conform to the theory of logical division; dividing and subdividing an the basis of a single characteristic was not followed. Thus logical division, which is a "top down" method of analysis, was rejected. Generic relationships would have to be made by some other methodology. A "bottom-up" or inductive, as opposed to deductive, method was a possibility. The Group actually decided to use a system in which a given genus could be subdivided in more than one way, thus "yielding a homogeneous group of collateral species."
The technique chosen was S. R. Ranganathan's facet analysis (q.v.). This method works from the bottom up: a term is categorized according to its parent class, as a kind, state, property, action, operation upon something, result of an Operation, agent, and so on. These modes of definition represent characteristics of division. Following the publication of this paper, the group worked for over ten years developing systems following this general pattern with various changes and experimental arrangements. Ranganathan's Colon Classification was the original of this type of method, but the Group rejected his contention that there are only five fundamental categories to be found in the knowledge base. They did, in fact, end up with varying numbers of categories in the experimental systems which they ultimately were to make. Notation was also recognized as a problem, being complex, illogical, lengthy, obscure and hard to understand. The Group tried to develop a rationale for notation, both as an ordering and as a finding device. To describe and represent a class, a notation could be long, but as a finding device, brevity would be preferable. The Group was to experiment with this aspect of classification and produce a number of interesting results. The Classification Research Group began meeting informally to discuss classification matters in 1952 and continues to meet, usually in London, to the present day. Most of the British authors whose work is presented in these pages have been members for most of the Group's life and continue in it. The Group maintains the basic position outlined in this paper to the present day. Its experimental approach has resulted in much more information about the nature and functions of classification systems. The ideal system has yet to be found. Classification research is still a promising area. The future calls for more experimentation based an reasoned approaches, following the example set by the Classification Research Group.

Footnote

Original in: Proceedings of the International Study Conference on Classification for Information Retrieval held at Beatrice Webb House, Dorking, England, 13th-17th May 1957. London: Aslib 1957, Appendix 2, S.137-147.

Source

Theory of subject analysis: a sourcebook. Ed.: L.M. Chan, et al

0.014428579 = product of:
  0.050500024 = sum of:
    0.019275296 = weight(_text_:of in 2824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019275296 = score(doc=2824,freq=132.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.28072193 = fieldWeight in 2824, product of:
          11.489125 = tf(freq=132.0), with freq of:
            132.0 = termFreq=132.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2824)
    0.031224728 = weight(_text_:congress in 2824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031224728 = score(doc=2824,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.20946044 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.1490722 = fieldWeight in 2824, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.7703104 = idf(docFreq=1018, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2824)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Classification is a crucial skill for all information workers involved in organizing collections, but it is a difficult concept to grasp - and is even more difficult to put into practice. Essential Classification offers full guidance an how to go about classifying a document from scratch. This much-needed text leads the novice classifier step by step through the basics of subject cataloguing, with an emphasis an practical document analysis and classification. It deals with fundamental questions of the purpose of classification in different situations, and the needs and expectations of end users. The novice is introduced to the ways in which document content can be assessed, and how this can best be expressed for translation into the language of specific indexing and classification systems. The characteristics of the major general schemes of classification are discussed, together with their suitability for different classification needs.

Footnote

Rez. in: KO 32(2005) no.1, S.47-49 (M. Hudon): "Vanda Broughton's Essential Classification is the most recent addition to a very small set of classification textbooks published over the past few years. The book's 21 chapters are based very closely an the cataloguing and classification module at the School of Library, Archive, and Information studies at University College, London. The author's main objective is clear: this is "first and foremost a book about how to classify. The emphasis throughout is an the activity of classification rather than the theory, the practical problems of the organization of collections, and the needs of the users" (p. 1). This is not a theoretical work, but a basic course in classification and classification scheme application. For this reviewer, who also teaches "Classification 101," this is also a fascinating peek into how a colleague organizes content and structures her course. "Classification is everywhere" (p. 1): the first sentence of this book is also one of the first statements in my own course, and Professor Broughton's metaphors - the supermarket, canned peas, flowers, etc. - are those that are used by our colleagues around the world. The combination of tone, writing style and content display are reader-friendly; they are in fact what make this book remarkable and what distinguishes it from more "formal" textbooks, such as The Organization of Information, the superb text written and recently updated (2004) by Professor Arlene Taylor (2nd ed. Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited, 2004). Reading Essential Classification, at times, feels like being in a classroom, facing a teacher who assures you that "you don't need to worry about this at this stage" (p. 104), and reassures you that, although you now speed a long time looking for things, "you will soon speed up when you get to know the scheme better" (p. 137). This teacher uses redundancy in a productive fashion, and she is not afraid to express her own opinions ("I think that if these concepts are helpful they may be used" (p. 245); "It's annoying that LCC doesn't provide clearer instructions, but if you keep your head and take them one step at a time [i.e. the tables] they're fairly straightforward" (p. 174)). Chapters 1 to 7 present the essential theoretical concepts relating to knowledge organization and to bibliographic classification. The author is adept at making and explaining distinctions: known-item retrieval versus subject retrieval, personal versus public/shared/official classification systems, scientific versus folk classification systems, object versus aspect classification systems, semantic versus syntactic relationships, and so on. Chapters 8 and 9 discuss the practice of classification, through content analysis and subject description. A short discussion of difficult subjects, namely the treatment of unique concepts (persons, places, etc.) as subjects seems a little advanced for a beginners' class.
In Chapter 10, "Controlled indexing languages," Professor Broughton states that a classification scheme is truly a language "since it permits communication and the exchange of information" (p. 89), a Statement with which this reviewer wholly agrees. Chapter 11, however, "Word-based approaches to retrieval," moves us to a different field altogether, offering only a narrow view of the whole world of controlled indexing languages such as thesauri, and presenting disconnected discussions of alphabetical filing, form and structure of subject headings, modern developments in alphabetical subject indexing, etc. Chapters 12 and 13 focus an the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), without even a passing reference to existing subject headings lists in other languages (French RAMEAU, German SWK, etc.). If it is not surprising to see a section on subject headings in a book on classification, the two subjects being taught together in most library schools, the location of this section in the middle of this particular book is more difficult to understand. Chapter 14 brings the reader back to classification, for a discussion of essentials of classification scheme application. The following five chapters present in turn each one of the three major and currently used bibliographic classification schemes, in order of increasing complexity and difficulty of application. The Library of Congress Classification (LCC), the easiest to use, is covered in chapters 15 and 16. The Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) deserves only a one-chapter treatment (Chapter 17), while the functionalities of the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC), which Professor Broughton knows extremely well, are described in chapters 18 and 19. Chapter 20 is a general discussion of faceted classification, on par with the first seven chapters for its theoretical content. Chapter 21, an interesting last chapter on managing classification, addresses down-to-earth matters such as the cost of classification, the need for re-classification, advantages and disadvantages of using print versions or e-versions of classification schemes, choice of classification scheme, general versus special scheme. But although the questions are interesting, the chapter provides only a very general overview of what appropriate answers might be. To facilitate reading and learning, summaries are strategically located at various places in the text, and always before switching to a related subject. Professor Broughton's choice of examples is always interesting, and sometimes even entertaining (see for example "Inside out: A brief history of underwear" (p. 71)). With many examples, however, and particularly those that appear in the five chapters an classification scheme applications, the novice reader would have benefited from more detailed explanations. On page 221, for example, "The history and social influence of the potato" results in this analysis of concepts: Potato - Sociology, and in the UDC class number: 635.21:316. What happened to the "history" aspect? Some examples are not very convincing: in Animals RT Reproduction and Art RT Reproduction (p. 102), the associative relationship is not appropriate as it is used to distinguish homographs and would do nothing to help either the indexer or the user at the retrieval stage.
Essential Classification is also an exercise book. Indeed, it contains a number of practical exercises and activities in every chapter, along with suggested answers. Unfortunately, the answers are too often provided without the justifications and explanations that students would no doubt demand. The author has taken great care to explain all technical terms in her text, but formal definitions are also gathered in an extensive 172-term Glossary; appropriately, these terms appear in bold type the first time they are used in the text. A short, very short, annotated bibliography of standard classification textbooks and of manuals for the use of major classification schemes is provided. A detailed 11-page index completes the set of learning aids which will be useful to an audience of students in their effort to grasp the basic concepts of the theory and the practice of document classification in a traditional environment. Essential Classification is a fine textbook. However, this reviewer deplores the fact that it presents only a very "traditional" view of classification, without much reference to newer environments such as the Internet where classification also manifests itself in various forms. In Essential Classification, books are always used as examples, and we have to take the author's word that traditional classification practices and tools can also be applied to other types of documents and elsewhere than in the traditional library. Vanda Broughton writes, for example, that "Subject headings can't be used for physical arrangement" (p. 101), but this is not entirely true. Subject headings can be used for physical arrangement of vertical files, for example, with each folder bearing a simple or complex heading which is then used for internal organization. And if it is true that subject headings cannot be reproduced an the spine of [physical] books (p. 93), the situation is certainly different an the World Wide Web where subject headings as metadata can be most useful in ordering a collection of hot links. The emphasis is also an the traditional paperbased, rather than an the electronic version of classification schemes, with excellent justifications of course. The reality is, however, that supporting organizations (LC, OCLC, etc.) are now providing great quality services online, and that updates are now available only in an electronic format and not anymore on paper. E-based versions of classification schemes could be safely ignored in a theoretical text, but they have to be described and explained in a textbook published in 2005. One last comment: Professor Broughton tends to use the same term, "classification" to represent the process (as in classification is grouping) and the tool (as in constructing a classification, using a classification, etc.). Even in the Glossary where classification is first well-defined as a process, and classification scheme as "a set of classes ...", the definition of classification scheme continues: "the classification consists of a vocabulary (...) and syntax..." (p. 296-297). Such an ambiguous use of the term classification seems unfortunate and unnecessarily confusing in an otherwise very good basic textbook an categorization of concepts and subjects, document organization and subject representation."

0.014265795 = product of:
  0.049930282 = sum of:
    0.01423575 = weight(_text_:of in 6404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01423575 = score(doc=6404,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 6404, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6404)
    0.035694532 = product of:
      0.071389064 = sum of:
        0.071389064 = weight(_text_:22 in 6404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.071389064 = score(doc=6404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15376249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043909185 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

Footnote

Übers. d. Titels: From classification to thesauri: making good use of facets

0.014265795 = product of:
  0.049930282 = sum of:
    0.01423575 = weight(_text_:of in 3773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01423575 = score(doc=3773,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06866331 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043909185 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 3773, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3773)
    0.035694532 = product of:
      0.071389064 = sum of:
        0.071389064 = weight(_text_:22 in 3773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.071389064 = score(doc=3773,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15376249 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043909185 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

Footnote

Übers. d. Titels: The good use of facets: from classifications to thesauri