Search (189 results, page 2 of 10)

  • × theme_ss:"Klassifikationstheorie: Elemente / Struktur"
  1. Frické, M.: Logic and the organization of information (2012) 0.03 
    0.03168095 = product of:
  0.0633619 = sum of:
    0.026188213 = weight(_text_:information in 1782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026188213 = score(doc=1782,freq=38.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.29590017 = fieldWeight in 1782, product of:
          6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
            38.0 = termFreq=38.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1782)
    0.03717368 = product of:
      0.07434736 = sum of:
        0.07434736 = weight(_text_:organization in 1782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07434736 = score(doc=1782,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.41361594 = fieldWeight in 1782, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1782)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Logic and the Organization of Information closely examines the historical and contemporary methodologies used to catalogue information objects-books, ebooks, journals, articles, web pages, images, emails, podcasts and more-in the digital era. This book provides an in-depth technical background for digital librarianship, and covers a broad range of theoretical and practical topics including: classification theory, topic annotation, automatic clustering, generalized synonymy and concept indexing, distributed libraries, semantic web ontologies and Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS). It also analyzes the challenges facing today's information architects, and outlines a series of techniques for overcoming them. Logic and the Organization of Information is intended for practitioners and professionals working at a design level as a reference book for digital librarianship. Advanced-level students, researchers and academics studying information science, library science, digital libraries and computer science will also find this book invaluable.
    Footnote
    Rez. in: J. Doc. 70(2014) no.4: "Books on the organization of information and knowledge, aimed at a library/information audience, tend to fall into two clear categories. Most are practical and pragmatic, explaining the "how" as much or more than the "why". Some are theoretical, in part or in whole, showing how the practice of classification, indexing, resource description and the like relates to philosophy, logic, and other foundational bases; the books by Langridge (1992) and by Svenonious (2000) are well-known examples this latter kind. To this category certainly belongs a recent book by Martin Frické (2012). The author takes the reader for an extended tour through a variety of aspects of information organization, including classification and taxonomy, alphabetical vocabularies and indexing, cataloguing and FRBR, and aspects of the semantic web. The emphasis throughout is on showing how practice is, or should be, underpinned by formal structures; there is a particular emphasis on first order predicate calculus. The advantages of a greater, and more explicit, use of symbolic logic is a recurring theme of the book. There is a particularly commendable historical dimension, often omitted in texts on this subject. It cannot be said that this book is entirely an easy read, although it is well written with a helpful index, and its arguments are generally well supported by clear and relevant examples. It is thorough and detailed, but thereby seems better geared to the needs of advanced students and researchers than to the practitioners who are suggested as a main market. For graduate students in library/information science and related disciplines, in particular, this will be a valuable resource. I would place it alongside Svenonious' book as the best insight into the theoretical "why" of information organization. It has evoked a good deal of interest, including a set of essay commentaries in Journal of Information Science (Gilchrist et al., 2013). Introducing these, Alan Gilchrist rightly says that Frické deserves a salute for making explicit the fundamental relationship between the ancient discipline of logic and modern information organization. If information science is to continue to develop, and make a contribution to the organization of the information environments of the future, then this book sets the groundwork for the kind of studies which will be needed." (D. Bawden)
    LCSH
    Information Systems
    Information storage and retrieval systems
    Subject
    Information Systems
    Information storage and retrieval systems
  2. Howarth, L.C.; Jansen, E.H.: Towards a typology of warrant for 21st century knowledge organization systems (2014) 0.03 
    0.03148804 = product of:
  0.12595215 = sum of:
    0.12595215 = sum of:
      0.08496841 = weight(_text_:organization in 1425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08496841 = score(doc=1425,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.47270393 = fieldWeight in 1425, 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=1425)
      0.04098374 = weight(_text_:22 in 1425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04098374 = score(doc=1425,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1425, 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=1425)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This paper returns to Beghtol's (1986) insightful typology of warrant to consider an empirical example of a traditional top-down hierarchical classification system as it continues to evolve in the early 21st century. Our examination considers there may be multiple warrants identified among the processes of design and the relationships to users of the National Occupational Classification (NOC), the standard occupational classification system published in Canada. We argue that this shift in semantic warrant signals a transition for traditional knowledge organization systems, and that warrant continues to be a relevant analytical concept and organizing principle, both within and beyond the domain of bibliographic control.
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol. 14
    Source
    Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik
  3. Vukadin, A.; Slavic, A.: Challenges of facet analysis and concept placement in Universal Classifications : the example of architecture in UDC (2014) 0.03 
    0.03148804 = product of:
  0.12595215 = sum of:
    0.12595215 = sum of:
      0.08496841 = weight(_text_:organization in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08496841 = score(doc=1428,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.47270393 = fieldWeight in 1428, 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=1428)
      0.04098374 = weight(_text_:22 in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04098374 = score(doc=1428,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1428, 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=1428)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The paper discusses the challenges of faceted vocabulary organization in universal classifications which treat the universe of knowledge as a coherent whole and in which the concepts and subjects in different disciplines are shared, related and combined. The authors illustrate the challenges of the facet analytical approach using, as an example, the revision of class 72 in UDC. The paper reports on the research undertaken in 2013 as preparation for the revision. This consisted of analysis of concept organization in the UDC schedules in comparison with the Art & Architecture Thesaurus and class W of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification. The paper illustrates how such research can contribute to a better understanding of the field and may lead to improvements in the facet structure of this segment of the UDC vocabulary.
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol. 14
    Source
    Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik
  4. Gnoli, C.; Ledl, A.; Park, Z.; Trzmielewski, M.: Phenomenon-based vs. disciplinary classification : possibilities for evaluating and for mapping (2018) 0.03 
    0.03139454 = product of:
  0.06278908 = sum of:
    0.013732546 = weight(_text_:information in 4804) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013732546 = score(doc=4804,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 4804, 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=4804)
    0.049056537 = product of:
      0.098113075 = sum of:
        0.098113075 = weight(_text_:organization in 4804) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.098113075 = score(doc=4804,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.5458315 = fieldWeight in 4804, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4804)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol.16
    Source
    Challenges and opportunities for knowledge organization in the digital age: proceedings of the Fifteenth International ISKO Conference, 9-11 July 2018, Porto, Portugal / organized by: International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO Spain and Portugal Chapter, University of Porto - Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Research Centre in Communication, Information and Digital Culture (CIC.digital) - Porto. Eds.: F. Ribeiro u. M.E. Cerveira
  5. Broughton, V.: Faceted classification as a basis for knowledge organization in a digital environment : the Bliss Bibliographic Classification as a model for vocabulary management and the creation of multidimensional knowledge structures (2003) 0.03 
    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
  6. Gnoli, C.: Naturalism vs pragmatism in knowledge organization (2004) 0.03 
    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
  7. Beghtol, C.: Classification theory (2010) 0.03 
    0.028524885 = product of:
  0.05704977 = sum of:
    0.014565565 = weight(_text_:information in 3761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014565565 = score(doc=3761,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 3761, 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=3761)
    0.042484205 = product of:
      0.08496841 = sum of:
        0.08496841 = weight(_text_:organization in 3761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08496841 = score(doc=3761,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.47270393 = fieldWeight in 3761, 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=3761)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    In the library and information sciences, classification theories are used primarily for knowledge organization, either in a manual or in a machine environment. In this context, classification theories have usually been developed initially as a support for specific knowledge organization classification systems, although the theories and the systems have influenced and re-influenced each other in particular ways throughout their lives. This entry discusses theories for knowledge organization classifications using examples from a number of classification systems, but no one system is discussed at length. Instead, the entry is organized into sections that deal first with classificatory issues in general and then with theories of content, theories of structure, and theories of notation for knowledge organization classifications.
    Source
    Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates
  8. Hjoerland, B.; Nicolaisen, J.: Scientific and scholarly classifications are not "naïve" : a comment to Begthol (2003) (2004) 0.03 
    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
  9. Poli, R.: Framing information (2003) 0.03 
    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
  10. ¬The need for a faceted classification as the basis of all methods of information retrieval : Memorandum of the Classification Research Group (1997) 0.03 
    0.026054136 = product of:
  0.052108273 = sum of:
    0.023785468 = weight(_text_:information in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023785468 = score(doc=562,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.2687516 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
    0.028322803 = product of:
      0.056645606 = sum of:
        0.056645606 = weight(_text_:organization in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056645606 = score(doc=562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.31513596 = fieldWeight in 562, 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=562)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Footnote
    Wiederabdruck aus: Proceedings of the International Study Conference on Classification for Information Retrieval, Dorking. London: Aslib 1957.
    Imprint
    The Hague : International Federation for Information and Documentation (FID)
    Source
    From classification to 'knowledge organization': Dorking revisited or 'past is prelude'. A collection of reprints to commemorate the firty year span between the Dorking Conference (First International Study Conference on Classification Research 1957) and the Sixth International Study Conference on Classification Research (London 1997). Ed.: A. Gilchrist
  11. Beghtol, C.: ¬The facet concept as a universal principle of subdivision (2006) 0.02 
    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
  12. Garcia Marco, F.J.; Esteban Navarro, M.A.: On some contributions of the cognitive sciences and epistemology to a theory of classification (1993) 0.02 
    0.023939986 = product of:
  0.04787997 = sum of:
    0.017839102 = weight(_text_:information in 5876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017839102 = score(doc=5876,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 5876, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5876)
    0.030040871 = product of:
      0.060081743 = sum of:
        0.060081743 = weight(_text_:organization in 5876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060081743 = score(doc=5876,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.33425218 = fieldWeight in 5876, 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=5876)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Intended is first of all a preliminary review of the implications that the new approaches to the theory of classification, mainly from cognitive psychology and epistemology may have for information work and research. As a secondary topic the scientific relations existing among information science, epistemology and the cognitive sciences are discussed. Classification is seen as a central activity in all daily and scientific activities, and, of course, of knowledge organization in information services. There is a mutual implication between classification and conceptualization, as the former moves in a natural way to the latter and the best result elaborated for classification is the concept. Research in concept theory is a need for a theory of classification. In this direction it is of outstanding importance to integrate the achievements of 'natural concept formation theory' (NCFT) as an alternative approach to conceptualization different from the traditional one of logicians and problem solving researchers. In conclusion both approaches are seen as being complementary: the NCFT approach being closer to the user and the logical one being more suitable for experts, including 'expert systems'
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 20(1993) no.3, S.126-132
  13. Esteban Navarro, M.A.: Fundamentos epistemologicos de la classificacion documental (1995) 0.02 
    0.023871778 = product of:
  0.047743555 = sum of:
    0.019420752 = weight(_text_:information in 5547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019420752 = score(doc=5547,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 5547, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5547)
    0.028322803 = product of:
      0.056645606 = sum of:
        0.056645606 = weight(_text_:organization in 5547) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056645606 = score(doc=5547,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.31513596 = fieldWeight in 5547, 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=5547)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Explains knowledge organization from an interdisciplinary perspective considering the capacity of humans to order, classify and organise. Considers classification by selective and relational criteria as positive for information retrieval. Discusses the descriptive and reductionist concepts of document classification. Proposes a concept based on the observation of the analytical and synthetic intellectual process of indexing and classifying and a unique definition for all types of information centres and documentary languages
  14. Dousa, T.M.; Ibekwe-SanJuan, F.: Epistemological and methodological eclecticism in the construction of knowledge organization systems (KOSs) : the case of analytico-synthetic KOSs (2014) 0.02 
    0.023868447 = product of:
  0.09547379 = sum of:
    0.09547379 = sum of:
      0.06132067 = weight(_text_:organization in 1417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06132067 = score(doc=1417,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.34114468 = fieldWeight in 1417, 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=1417)
      0.03415312 = weight(_text_:22 in 1417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03415312 = score(doc=1417,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1417, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1417)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol. 14
    Source
    Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik
  15. Hjoerland, B.: Facet analysis : the logical approach to knowledge organization (2013) 0.02 
    0.023770738 = product of:
  0.047541477 = sum of:
    0.01213797 = weight(_text_:information in 2720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01213797 = score(doc=2720,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 2720, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2720)
    0.035403505 = product of:
      0.07080701 = sum of:
        0.07080701 = weight(_text_:organization in 2720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07080701 = score(doc=2720,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.39391994 = fieldWeight in 2720, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2720)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The facet-analytic paradigm is probably the most distinct approach to knowledge organization within Library and Information Science, and in many ways it has dominated what has be termed "modern classification theory". It was mainly developed by S.R. Ranganathan and the British Classification Research Group, but it is mostly based on principles of logical division developed more than two millennia ago. Colon Classification (CC) and Bliss 2 (BC2) are among the most important systems developed on this theoretical basis, but it has also influenced the development of other systems, such as the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) and is also applied in many websites. It still has a strong position in the field and it is the most explicit and "pure" theoretical approach to knowledge organization (KO) (but it is not by implication necessarily also the most important one). The strength of this approach is its logical principles and the way it provides structures in knowledge organization systems (KOS). The main weaknesses are (1) its lack of empirical basis and (2) its speculative ordering of knowledge without basis in the development or influence of theories and socio-historical studies. It seems to be based on the problematic assumption that relations between concepts are a priori and not established by the development of models, theories and laws.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 49(2013) no.2, S.545-557
  16. Gnoli, C.: Classifying phenomena : Part 1: dimensions (2016) 0.02 
    0.023770738 = product of:
  0.047541477 = sum of:
    0.01213797 = weight(_text_:information in 3417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01213797 = score(doc=3417,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 3417, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3417)
    0.035403505 = product of:
      0.07080701 = sum of:
        0.07080701 = weight(_text_:organization in 3417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07080701 = score(doc=3417,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.39391994 = fieldWeight in 3417, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3417)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This is the first part of a study on the classification of phenomena. It starts by addressing the status of classification schemes among knowledge organization systems (KOSs), as some features of them have been overlooked in recent reviews of KOS types. It then considers the different dimensions implied in a KOS, which include: the observed phenomena, the cultural and disciplinary perspective under which they are treated, the features of documents carrying such treatment, the collections of such documents as managed in libraries, archives or museums, the information needs prompting to search and use these collections and the people experiencing such different information needs. Until now, most library classification schemes have given priority to the perspective dimension as they first list disciplines. However, an increasing number of voices are now considering the possibility of classification schemes giving priority to phenomena as advocated in the León Manifesto. Although these schemes first list phenomena as their main classes, they can as well express perspective or the other relevant dimensions that occur in a classified item. The independence of a phenomenon-based classification from the institutional divisions into disciplines contributes to giving knowledge organization a more proactive and influential role.
    Footnote
    Part 2 in: Knowledge organization. 44(2017) no.1, S.37-54.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 43(2016) no.6, S.403-415
  17. Furner, J.; Dunbar, A.W.: ¬The treatment of topics relating to people of mixed race in bibliographic classification schemes : a critical race-theoretic approach (2004) 0.02 
    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
  18. Hjoerland, B.: ¬The methodology of constructing classification schemes : a discussion of the state-of-the-art (2003) 0.02 
    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
  19. Campbell, G.: ¬A queer eye for the faceted guy : how a universal classification principle can be applied to a distinct subculture (2004) 0.02 
    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
  20. Slavic, A.; Cordeiro, M.I.: Core requirements for automation of analytico-synthetic classifications (2004) 0.02 
    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

Authors

Years

Languages

Types

  • a 172
  • m 12
  • el 8
  • s 4
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications