Search (75 results, page 1 of 4)

0.13331564 = product of:
  0.17775418 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 780, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=780)
    0.066389285 = weight(_text_:standards in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066389285 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.29545712 = fieldWeight in 780, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=780)
    0.10106549 = sum of:
      0.060081743 = weight(_text_:organization in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.060081743 = score(doc=780,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.33425218 = fieldWeight in 780, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=780)
      0.04098374 = weight(_text_:22 in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04098374 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 780, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=780)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Networked orientated standards for vocabulary publishing and exchange and proposals for terminological services and terminology registries will improve sharing and use of all knowledge organization systems in the networked information environment. This means that documentary classifications may also become more applicable for use outside their original domain of application. The paper summarises some characteristics common to documentary classifications and explains some terminological, functional and implementation aspects. The original purpose behind each classification scheme determines the functions that the vocabulary is designed to facilitate. These functions influence the structure, semantics and syntax, scheme coverage and format in which classification data are published and made available. The author suggests that attention should be paid to the differences between documentary classifications as these may determine their suitability for a certain purpose and may impose different requirements with respect to their use online. As we speak, many classifications are being created for knowledge organization and it may be important to promote expertise from the bibliographic domain with respect to building and using classification systems.

Date

22.12.2007 17:22:31

0.063298725 = product of:
  0.12659745 = sum of:
    0.009710376 = weight(_text_:information in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009710376 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
    0.11688707 = sum of:
      0.08956458 = weight(_text_:organization in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08956458 = score(doc=2763,freq=20.0), product of:
          0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.49827373 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
            4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
              20.0 = termFreq=20.0
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.027322493 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027322493 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = 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(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

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.8

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

0.06196475 = product of:
  0.1239295 = sum of:
    0.093888626 = weight(_text_:standards in 2270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.093888626 = score(doc=2270,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.41783947 = fieldWeight in 2270, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2270)
    0.030040871 = product of:
      0.060081743 = sum of:
        0.060081743 = weight(_text_:organization in 2270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060081743 = score(doc=2270,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.33425218 = fieldWeight in 2270, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2270)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

Classifications of natural phenomena demonstrate the applicability of discourse analysis in finding the importance of concepts such as warrant for categorization and classification. Temperature scales provide a body of official literature for close consideration. Official documents of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) reveal the reasoning behind choices affecting these standards. A more cursory scrutiny of the Saffir-Simpson Scale through scholarly publications and documentation from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (KIST) indicates the potential of this form of analysis. The same holds true for an examination of the definition of what is a planet as determined by the International Astronomical Union. As Sayers, Richardson, and Bliss have indicated, there seem to be principles and a reliance on context that bridge the differences between natural and artificial, scientific and bibliographic classifications.

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.11

Source

Culture and identity in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Tenth International ISKO Conference 5-8 August 2008, Montreal, Canada. Ed. by Clément Arsenault and Joseph T. Tennis

0.056319736 = product of:
  0.11263947 = sum of:
    0.017165681 = weight(_text_:information in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017165681 = score(doc=3483,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 3483, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3483)
    0.09547379 = sum of:
      0.06132067 = weight(_text_:organization in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06132067 = score(doc=3483,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.34114468 = fieldWeight in 3483, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3483)
      0.03415312 = weight(_text_:22 in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03415312 = score(doc=3483,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3483, 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=3483)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Classification is an activity that transcends time and space and that bridges the divisions between different languages and cultures, including the divisions between academic disciplines. Classificatory activity, however, serves different purposes in different situations. Classifications for infonnation retrieval can be called "professional" classifications and classifications in other fields can be called "naïve" classifications because they are developed by people who have no particular interest in classificatory issues. The general purpose of naïve classification systems is to discover new knowledge. In contrast, the general purpose of information retrieval classifications is to classify pre-existing knowledge. Different classificatory purposes may thus inform systems that are intended to span the cultural specifics of the globalized information society. This paper builds an previous research into the purposes and characteristics of naïve classifications. It describes some of the relationships between the purpose and context of a naive classification, the units of analysis used in it, and the theory that the context and the units of analysis imply.

Footnote

Vgl.: Jacob, E.K.: Proposal for a classification of classifications built on Beghtol's distinction between "Naïve Classification" and "Professional Classification". In: Knowledge organization. 37(2010) no.2, S.111-120.

Pages

S.19-22

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.9

Source

Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine

0.054004587 = product of:
  0.072006114 = sum of:
    0.00849658 = weight(_text_:information in 3536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00849658 = score(doc=3536,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.0960027 = fieldWeight in 3536, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3536)
    0.038727082 = weight(_text_:standards in 3536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038727082 = score(doc=3536,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.17234999 = fieldWeight in 3536, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3536)
    0.024782453 = product of:
      0.049564905 = sum of:
        0.049564905 = weight(_text_:organization in 3536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049564905 = score(doc=3536,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.27574396 = fieldWeight in 3536, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3536)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

I am writing to correct some of the misconceptions that Hjoerland and Nicolaisen appear to have about my paper in the previous issue of Knowledge Organization. I would like to address aspects of two of these misapprehensions. The first is the faulty interpretation they have given to my use of the term "naïve classification," and the second is the kinds of classification systems that they appear to believe are discussed in my paper as examples of "naïve classifications." First, the term "naïve classification" is directly analogous to the widely-understood and widelyaccepted term "naïve indexing." It is not analogous to the terms to which Hjorland and Nicolaisen compare it (i.e., "naïve physics", "naïve biology"). The term as I have defined it is not pejorative. It does not imply that the scholars who have developed naïve classifications have not given profoundly serious thought to their own scholarly work. My paper distinguishes between classifications for new knowledge developed by scholars in the various disciplines for the purposes of advancing disciplinary knowledge ("naïve classifications") and classifications for previously existing knowledge developed by information professionals for the purposes of creating access points in information retrieval systems ("professional classifications"). This distinction rests primarily an the purpose of the kind of classification system in question and only secondarily an the knowledge base of the scholars who have created it. Hjoerland and Nicolaisen appear to have misunderstood this point, which is made clearly and adequately in the title, in the abstract and throughout the text of my paper.
Second, the paper posits that these different reasons for creating classification systems strongly influence the content and extent of the two kinds of classifications, but not necessarily their structures. By definition, naïve classifications for new knowledge have been developed for discrete areas of disciplinary inquiry in new areas of knowledge. These classifications do not attempt to classify the whole of that disciplinary area. That is, naïve classifications have a explicit purpose that is significantly different from the purpose of the major disciplinary classifications Hjoer-land and Nicolaisen provide as examples of classifications they think I discuss under the rubric of "naïve classifications" (e.g., classifications for the entire field of archaeology, biology, linguistics, music, psychology, etc.). My paper is not concerned with these important classifications for major disciplinary areas. Instead, it is concerned solely and specifically with scholarly classifications for small areas of new knowledge within these major disciplines (e.g., cloth of aresta, double harpsichords, child-rearing practices, anomalous phenomena, etc.). Thus, I have nowhere suggested or implied that the broad disciplinary classifications mentioned by Hjoerland and Nicolaisen are appropriately categorized as "naïve classifications." For example, I have not associated the Periodic System of the Elements with naïve classifications, as Hjoerland and Nicolaisen state that I have done. Indeed, broad classifications of this type fall well outside the definition of naïve classifications set out in my paper. In this case, too, 1 believe that Hjorland and Nicolaisen have misunderstood an important point in my paper. I agree with a number of points made in Hjorland and Nicolaisen's paper. In particular, I agree that researchers in the knowledge organization field should adhere to the highest standards of scholarly and scientific precision. For that reason, I am glad to have had the opportunity to respond to their paper.

Footnote

Bezugnahme auf: Hjoerland, B., J. Nicolaisen: Scientific and scholarly classifications are not "naïve": a comment to Beghtol (2003). In: Knowledge organization. 31(2004) no.1, S.55-61. - Vgl. die Erwiderung von Nicolaisen und Hjoerland in KO 31(2004) no.3, S.199-201.

Source

Knowledge organization. 31(2004) no.1, S.62-63

0.053006604 = product of:
  0.07067547 = sum of:
    0.007432959 = weight(_text_:information in 3262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007432959 = score(doc=3262,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.083984874 = fieldWeight in 3262, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3262)
    0.047912344 = weight(_text_:standards in 3262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047912344 = score(doc=3262,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.21322784 = fieldWeight in 3262, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3262)
    0.0153301675 = product of:
      0.030660335 = sum of:
        0.030660335 = weight(_text_:organization in 3262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030660335 = score(doc=3262,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.17057234 = fieldWeight in 3262, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3262)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

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."

0.037331354 = product of:
  0.04977514 = sum of:
    0.009595908 = weight(_text_:information in 2467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009595908 = score(doc=2467,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.10842399 = fieldWeight in 2467, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2467)
    0.0276622 = weight(_text_:standards in 2467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0276622 = score(doc=2467,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.123107135 = fieldWeight in 2467, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2467)
    0.012517029 = product of:
      0.025034059 = sum of:
        0.025034059 = weight(_text_:organization in 2467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025034059 = score(doc=2467,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.13927174 = fieldWeight in 2467, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2467)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

This is a classified, annotated bibliography about how to design faceted classification systems and make them usable on the World Wide Web. It is the first of three works I will be doing. The second, based on the material here and elsewhere, will discuss how to actually make the faceted system and put it online. The third will be a report of how I did just that, what worked, what didn't, and what I learned. Almost every article or book listed here begins with an explanation of what a faceted classification system is, so I won't (but see Steckel in Background below if you don't already know). They all agree that faceted systems are very appropriate for the web. Even pre-web articles (such as Duncan's in Background, below) assert that hypertext and facets will go together well. Combined, it is possible to take a set of documents and classify them or apply subject headings to describe what they are about, then build a navigational structure so that any user, no matter how he or she approaches the material, no matter what his or her goals, can move and search in a way that makes sense to them, but still get to the same useful results as someone else following a different path to the same goal. There is no one way that everyone will always use when looking for information. The more flexible the organization of the information, the more accommodating it is. Facets are more flexible for hypertext browsing than any enumerative or hierarchical system.
Consider movie listings in newspapers. Most Canadian newspapers list movie showtimes in two large blocks, for the two major theatre chains. The listings are ordered by region (in large cities), then theatre, then movie, and finally by showtime. Anyone wondering where and when a particular movie is playing must scan the complete listings. Determining what movies are playing in the next half hour is very difficult. When movie listings went onto the web, most sites used a simple faceted organization, always with movie name and theatre, and perhaps with region or neighbourhood (thankfully, theatre chains were left out). They make it easy to pick a theatre and see what movies are playing there, or to pick a movie and see what theatres are showing it. To complete the system, the sites should allow users to browse by neighbourhood and showtime, and to order the results in any way they desired. Thus could people easily find answers to such questions as, "Where is the new James Bond movie playing?" "What's showing at the Roxy tonight?" "I'm going to be out in in Little Finland this afternoon with three hours to kill starting at 2 ... is anything interesting playing?" A hypertext, faceted classification system makes more useful information more easily available to the user. Reading the books and articles below in chronological order will show a certain progression: suggestions that faceting and hypertext might work well, confidence that facets would work well if only someone would make such a system, and finally the beginning of serious work on actually designing, building, and testing faceted web sites. There is a solid basis of how to make faceted classifications (see Vickery in Recommended), but their application online is just starting. Work on XFML (see Van Dijck's work in Recommended) the Exchangeable Faceted Metadata Language, will make this easier. If it follows previous patterns, parts of the Internet community will embrace the idea and make open source software available for others to reuse. It will be particularly beneficial if professionals in both information studies and computer science can work together to build working systems, standards, and code. Each can benefit from the other's expertise in what can be a very complicated and technical area. One particularly nice thing about this area of research is that people interested in combining facets and the web often have web sites where they post their writings.
This bibliography is not meant to be exhaustive, but unfortunately it is not as complete as I wanted. Some books and articles are not be included, but they may be used in my future work. (These include two books and one article by B.C. Vickery: Faceted Classification Schemes (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers, 1966), Classification and Indexing in Science, 3rd ed. (London: Butterworths, 1975), and "Knowledge Representation: A Brief Review" (Journal of Documentation 42 no. 3 (September 1986): 145-159; and A.C. Foskett's "The Future of Faceted Classification" in The Future of Classification, edited by Rita Marcella and Arthur Maltby (Aldershot, England: Gower, 2000): 69-80). Nevertheless, I hope this bibliography will be useful for those both new to or familiar with faceted hypertext systems. Some very basic resources are listed, as well as some very advanced ones. Some example web sites are mentioned, but there is no detailed technical discussion of any software. The user interface to any web site is extremely important, and this is briefly mentioned in two or three places (for example the discussion of lawforwa.org (see Example Web Sites)). The larger question of how to display information graphically and with hypertext is outside the scope of this bibliography. There are five sections: Recommended, Background, Not Relevant, Example Web Sites, and Mailing Lists. Background material is either introductory, advanced, or of peripheral interest, and can be read after the Recommended resources if the reader wants to know more. The Not Relevant category contains articles that may appear in bibliographies but are not relevant for my purposes.

0.03636017 = product of:
  0.07272034 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 3535) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=3535,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 3535, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3535)
    0.060704365 = product of:
      0.12140873 = sum of:
        0.12140873 = weight(_text_:organization in 3535) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12140873 = score(doc=3535,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.675432 = fieldWeight in 3535, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3535)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The present paper presents a philosophical approach to knowledge organization, proposing the pragmatic doctrine of C.S. Peirce as basic analytical framework for knowledge domains. The theoretical framework discussed is related to the qualitative brauch of knowledge organization theory 1.e. within scope of Hjoerland's domain analytical view (Hjoerland and Albrechtsen 1995; Hjoerland 2002; Hjoerland 2004), and promote a general framework for analyzing domain knowledge and concepts. However, the concept of knowledge organization can be viewed in at least two perspectives, one that defines knowledge organization as an activity performed by a human actor e.g. an information specialist, and secondly a view that has the perspective of the inherent self-organizing structure of a knowledge domain the latter being investigated in the paper.

Source

Knowledge organization. 31(2004) no.3, S.177-187

0.033715617 = product of:
  0.067431234 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=169,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 169, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=169)
    0.055415254 = product of:
      0.11083051 = sum of:
        0.11083051 = weight(_text_:organization in 169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11083051 = score(doc=169,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.6165823 = fieldWeight in 169, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=169)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

While taxonomies are being increasingly discussed in published and grey literature, the term taxonomy still seems to be stated quite loosely and obscurely. This paper aims at explaining and clarifying the concept of taxonomy in the context of information organization. To this end, the salient features of taxonomies are identified and their scope, nature, and role are further elaborated based on an extensive literature review. In the meantime, the connection and distinctions between taxonomies and classification schemes and thesauri are also identified, and the rationale that taxonomies are chosen as a viable knowledge organization system used in organization-wide websites to support browsing and aid navigation is clarified.

Source

Knowledge organization. 33(2006) no.3, S.160-169

0.028899102 = product of:
  0.057798203 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 2631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=2631,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2631, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2631)
    0.047498792 = product of:
      0.094997585 = sum of:
        0.094997585 = weight(_text_:organization in 2631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.094997585 = score(doc=2631,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.5284991 = fieldWeight in 2631, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2631)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The paper examines the way in which classification schemes can be applied to the organization of digital resources. The case is argued for the particular suitability of schemes based an faceted principles for the organization of complex digital objects. Details are given of a co-operative project between the School of Library Archive & Information Studies, University College London, and the United Kingdom Higher Education gateways Arts and Humanities Data Service and Humbul, in which a faceted knowledge structure is being developed for the indexing and display of digital materials within a new combined humanities portal.

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.8

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

0.028524885 = product of:
  0.05704977 = sum of:
    0.014565565 = weight(_text_:information in 2663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014565565 = score(doc=2663,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2663, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2663)
    0.042484205 = product of:
      0.08496841 = sum of:
        0.08496841 = weight(_text_:organization in 2663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08496841 = score(doc=2663,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.47270393 = fieldWeight in 2663, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2663)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Several authors remark that categories used in languages, including indexing ones, are affected by cultural biases, and do not reflect reality in an objective way. Hence knowledge organization would essentially be determined by pragmatic factors. However, human categories are connected with the structure of reality through biological bonds, and this allows for a naturalistic approach too. Naturalism has been adopted by Farradane in proposing relational categories, and by Dahlberg and the CRG in applying the theory of integrative levels to general classification schemes. The latter is especially relevant for possible developments in making the structure of schemes independent from disciplines, and in applying it to digital information retrieval.

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.9

Source

Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine

0.028374001 = product of:
  0.056748003 = sum of:
    0.017165681 = weight(_text_:information in 3023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017165681 = score(doc=3023,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 3023, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3023)
    0.039582323 = product of:
      0.07916465 = sum of:
        0.07916465 = weight(_text_:organization in 3023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07916465 = score(doc=3023,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.44041592 = fieldWeight in 3023, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3023)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Relationships between Knowledge Organization in LIS and Scientific & Scholarly Classifications In her paper "Classification for Information Retrieval and Classification for Knowledge Discovery: Relationships between 'Professional' and 'Naive' Classifications" (KO v30, no.2, 2003), Beghtol outlines how Scholarly activities and research lead to classification systems which subsequently are disseminated in publications which are classified in information retrieval systems, retrieved by the users and again used in Scholarly activities and so on. We think this model is correct and that its point is important. What we are reacting to is the fact that Beghtol describes the Classifications developed by scholars as "naive" while she describes the Classifications developed by librarians and information scientists as "professional." We fear that this unfortunate terminology is rooted in deeply ar chored misjudgments about the relationships between scientific and Scholarly classification an the one side and LIS Classifications an the other. Only a correction of this misjudgment may give us in the field of knowledge organization a Chance to do a job that is not totally disrespected and disregarded by the rest of the intellectual world.

Footnote

Bezugnahme auf: Beghtol, C.: Classification for information retrieval and classification for knowledge discovery: relationships between 'professional' and 'naive' classifications" in: Knowledge organization. 30(2003), no.2, S.64-73; vgl. dazu auch die Erwiderung von C. Beghtol in: Knowledge organization. 31(2004) no.1, S.62-63.

Source

Knowledge organization. 31(2004) no.1, S.55-61

0.026893519 = product of:
  0.053787038 = sum of:
    0.013732546 = weight(_text_:information in 2711) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013732546 = score(doc=2711,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 2711, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2711)
    0.040054493 = product of:
      0.080108985 = sum of:
        0.080108985 = weight(_text_:organization in 2711) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.080108985 = score(doc=2711,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.44566956 = fieldWeight in 2711, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2711)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.8

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

0.024407204 = product of:
  0.04881441 = sum of:
    0.024031956 = weight(_text_:information in 1483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024031956 = score(doc=1483,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 1483, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1483)
    0.024782453 = product of:
      0.049564905 = sum of:
        0.049564905 = weight(_text_:organization in 1483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049564905 = score(doc=1483,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.27574396 = fieldWeight in 1483, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1483)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Facet analysis has been one of the foremost contenders as a design principle for information retrieval classifications, both manual and electronic in the last fifty years. Evidence is presented that the facet concept has a claim to be considered as a method of subdivision that is cognitively available to human beings, regardless of language, culture, or academic discipline. The possibility that faceting is a universal method of subdivision enhances the claim that facet analysis as an unusually useful design principle for information retrieval classifications in any field. This possibility needs further investigation in an age when information access across boundaries is both necessary and possible.

Source

Knowledge organization, information systems and other essays: Professor A. Neelameghan Festschrift. Ed. by K.S. Raghavan and K.N. Prasad

0.023531828 = product of:
  0.047063656 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 2640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=2640,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 2640, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2640)
    0.03504768 = product of:
      0.07009536 = sum of:
        0.07009536 = weight(_text_:organization in 2640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07009536 = score(doc=2640,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.38996086 = fieldWeight in 2640, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2640)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.9

Source

Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine

0.022570834 = product of:
  0.045141667 = sum of:
    0.016818866 = weight(_text_:information in 2760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016818866 = score(doc=2760,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.19003606 = fieldWeight in 2760, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2760)
    0.028322803 = product of:
      0.056645606 = sum of:
        0.056645606 = weight(_text_:organization in 2760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056645606 = score(doc=2760,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.31513596 = fieldWeight in 2760, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, 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.

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.8

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

Theme

Information Gateway

0.022563543 = product of:
  0.045127086 = sum of:
    0.020598818 = weight(_text_:information in 2639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020598818 = score(doc=2639,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274568 = fieldWeight in 2639, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2639)
    0.024528269 = product of:
      0.049056537 = sum of:
        0.049056537 = weight(_text_:organization in 2639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049056537 = score(doc=2639,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.27291575 = fieldWeight in 2639, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2639)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The results of a small qualitative study of gay and lesbian information users suggest that facet analysis as it is increasingly practised in the field of information architecture provides a promising avenue for improving information access to gay and lesbian information resources. Findings indicated that gay and lesbian information users have an acute sense of categorization grounded in the need to identify gay-positive physical and social spaces, and in their finely-honed practices of detecting gay "facets" to general information themes. They are also, however, very flexible and adaptable in their application of gay-related facet values, which suggests that browsing systems will have to be designed with considerable care.

Content

1. Introduction The title of this paper is taken from a TV show which has gained considerable popularity in North America: A Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, in which a group of gay men subject a helpless straight male to a complete fashion makeover. In facet analysis, this would probably be seen as an "operation upon" something, and the Bliss Bibliographic Classification would place it roughly two-thirds of the way along its facet order, after "types" and "materials," but before "space" and "time." But the link between gay communities and facet analysis extends beyond the facetious title. As Web-based information resources for gay and lesbian users continue to grow, Web sites that cater to, or at least refrain from discriminating against gay and lesbian users are faced with a daunting challenge when trying to organize these diverse resources in a way that facilitates congenial browsing. And principles of faceted classification, with their emphasis an clear and consistent principles of subdivision and their care in defining the order of subdivisions, offer an important opportunity to use time-honoured classification principles to serve the growing needs of these communities. If faceted organization schemes are to work, however, we need to know more about gay and lesbian users, and how they categorize themselves and their information sources. This paper presents the results of an effort to learn more.

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.9

Source

Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine

0.022303218 = product of:
  0.044606436 = sum of:
    0.014565565 = weight(_text_:information in 2651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014565565 = score(doc=2651,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2651, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2651)
    0.030040871 = product of:
      0.060081743 = sum of:
        0.060081743 = weight(_text_:organization in 2651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060081743 = score(doc=2651,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.33425218 = fieldWeight in 2651, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2651)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The paper analyses the importance of data presentation and modelling and its role in improving the management, use and exchange of analytico-synthetic classifications in automated systems. Inefficiencies, in this respect, hinder the automation of classification systems that offer the possibility of building compound index/search terms. The lack of machine readable data expressing the semantics and structure of a classification vocabulary has negative effects on information management and retrieval, thus restricting the potential of both automated systems and classifications themselves. The authors analysed the data representation structure of three general analytico-synthetic classification systems (BC2-Bliss Bibliographic Classification; BSO-Broad System of Ordering; UDC-Universal Decimal Classification) and put forward some core requirements for classification data representation

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.9

Source

Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine

0.022112938 = product of:
  0.044225875 = sum of:
    0.019191816 = weight(_text_:information in 3021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019191816 = score(doc=3021,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 3021, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3021)
    0.025034059 = product of:
      0.050068118 = sum of:
        0.050068118 = weight(_text_:organization in 3021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050068118 = score(doc=3021,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.27854347 = fieldWeight in 3021, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3021)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Classification is a transdisciplinary activity that occurs during all human pursuits. Classificatory activity, however, serves different purposes in different situations. In information retrieval, the primary purpose of classification is to find knowledge that already exists, but one of the purposes of classification in other fields is to discover new knowledge. In this paper, classifications for information retrieval are called "professional" classifications because they are devised by people who have a professional interest in classification, and classifications for knowledge discovery are called "naive" classifications because they are devised by people who have no particular interest in studying classification as an end in itself. This paper compares the overall purposes and methods of these two kinds of classifications and provides a general model of the relationships between the two kinds of classificatory activity in the context of information studies. This model addresses issues of the influence of scholarly activity and communication an the creation and revision of classifications for the purposes of information retrieval and for the purposes of knowledge discovery. Further comparisons elucidate the relationships between the universality of classificatory methods and the specific purposes served by naive and professional classification systems.

Footnote

Vgl. Stellungnahme dazu in: Hjoerland, B., J. Nicolaisen: Scientific and scholarly classifications are not "naïve": a comment to Beghtol (2003). In: Knowledge organization. 31(2004) no.1, S.55-61.

Source

Knowledge organization. 30(2003) no.2, S.64-73

0.021027675 = product of:
  0.04205535 = sum of:
    0.013732546 = weight(_text_:information in 3017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013732546 = score(doc=3017,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 3017, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3017)
    0.028322803 = product of:
      0.056645606 = sum of:
        0.056645606 = weight(_text_:organization in 3017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056645606 = score(doc=3017,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.31513596 = fieldWeight in 3017, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3017)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper surveys classification research literature, discusses various classification theories, and shows that the focus has traditionally been an establishing a scientific foundation for classification research. This paper argues that a shift has taken place, and suggests that contemporary classification research focus an contextual information as the guide for the design and construction of classification schemes.

Source

Knowledge organization. 31(2004) no.1, S.39-48