Search (31 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × author_ss:"Beghtol, C."
  1. Beghtol, C.: Toward a theory of fiction analysis for information storage and retrieval (1992) 0.02 
    0.017682666 = product of:
  0.048627328 = sum of:
    0.0062481174 = weight(_text_:a in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0062481174 = score(doc=5830,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 5830, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5830)
    0.0027776284 = weight(_text_:s in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0027776284 = score(doc=5830,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 5830, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5830)
    0.025194194 = weight(_text_:u in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025194194 = score(doc=5830,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08704981 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.28942272 = fieldWeight in 5830, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5830)
    0.014407388 = product of:
      0.028814776 = sum of:
        0.028814776 = weight(_text_:22 in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028814776 = score(doc=5830,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09309476 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5830, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5830)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    Abstract
    This paper examnines various isues that arise in establishing a theoretical basis for an experimental fiction analysis system. It analyzes the warrants of fiction and of works about fiction. From this analysis, it derives classificatory requirements for a fiction system. Classificatory techniques that may contribute to the specification of data elements in fiction are suggested
    Date
    5. 8.2006 13:22:08
    Pages
    S.39-48
    Source
    Classification research for knowledge representation and organization. Proc. 5th Int. Study Conf. on Classification Research, Toronto, Canada, 24.-28.6.1991. Ed. by N.J. Williamson u. M. Hudon
    Type
    a
  2. Beghtol, C.: Relationships in classificatory structure and meaning (2001) 0.02 
    0.016905174 = product of:
  0.046489224 = sum of:
    0.0061991126 = weight(_text_:a in 1138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0061991126 = score(doc=1138,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 1138, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1138)
    0.019311246 = weight(_text_:r in 1138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019311246 = score(doc=1138,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.2194412 = fieldWeight in 1138, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1138)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 1138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=1138,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 1138, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1138)
    0.018895645 = weight(_text_:u in 1138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018895645 = score(doc=1138,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08704981 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.21706703 = fieldWeight in 1138, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1138)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    Abstract
    In a changing information environment, we need to reassess each element of bibliographic control, including classification theories and systems. Every classification system is a theoretical construct imposed an "reality." The classificatory relationships that are assumed to be valuable have generally received less attention than the topics included in the systems. Relationships are functions of both the syntactic and semantic axes of classification systems, and both explicit and implicit relationships are discussed. Examples are drawn from a number of different systems, both bibliographic and non-bibliographic, and the cultural warrant (i. e., the sociocultural context) of classification systems is examined. The part-whole relationship is discussed as an example of a universally valid concept that is treated as a component of the cultural warrant of a classification system.
    Pages
    S.99-113
    Source
    Relationships in the organization of knowledge. Eds.: Bean, C.A. u. R. Green
    Type
    a
  3. Beghtol, C.: ¬The global learning society and the iterative relationship between theory and practice in knowledge organization systems (2006) 0.01 
    0.014628893 = product of:
  0.040229455 = sum of:
    0.0027613041 = weight(_text_:a in 2517) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0027613041 = score(doc=2517,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.090081796 = fieldWeight in 2517, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2517)
    0.003006871 = weight(_text_:s in 2517) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003006871 = score(doc=2517,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.10403037 = fieldWeight in 2517, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2517)
    0.015746372 = weight(_text_:u in 2517) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015746372 = score(doc=2517,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08704981 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.1808892 = fieldWeight in 2517, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2517)
    0.018714907 = weight(_text_:k in 2517) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018714907 = score(doc=2517,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09490114 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.19720423 = fieldWeight in 2517, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2517)
  0.36363637 = coord(4/11)
    Abstract
    In the global learning society, we need to understand how knowledge is transferred within one field and among different fields. In addition, we need to know how to create an atmosphere of tolerance for different points of view. One way of achieving understanding between different cultures and from different vantage points within the same culture is to study the relationship(s) between theory and practice. For this purpose, it is useful to understand the relationship(s) among ideas, how initial ideas migrate into practice and back into theory, and how "best practices" are identified and become widespread. In this paper, knowledge organization systems are used as examples of how knowledge organization systems are created, how knowledge of the systems may be disseminated, and how that new knowledge is integrated into accepted theory and practice. This examination provides clues about the development of theories and practices that can enhance the contributions knowledge organization systems make to the global learning society.
    Pages
    S.159-164
    Source
    Knowledge organization for a global learning society: Proceedings of the 9th International ISKO Conference, 4-7 July 2006, Vienna, Austria. Hrsg.: G. Budin, C. Swertz u. K. Mitgutsch
    Type
    a
  4. Beghtol, C.: Exploring new approaches to the organization of knowledge : the subject classification of James Duff Brown (2004) 0.01 
    0.00697389 = product of:
  0.025570929 = sum of:
    0.0033135647 = weight(_text_:a in 869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0033135647 = score(doc=869,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 869, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=869)
    0.019311246 = weight(_text_:r in 869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019311246 = score(doc=869,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.088001914 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.2194412 = fieldWeight in 869, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3102584 = idf(docFreq=4387, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=869)
    0.00294612 = weight(_text_:s in 869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00294612 = score(doc=869,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.101928525 = fieldWeight in 869, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=869)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    Abstract
    James Duff Brown was an influential and energetic librarian in Great Britain in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. His Subject Classification has characteristics that were unusual and idiosyncratic during his own time, but his work deserves recognition as one of the precursors of modern bibliographic classification systems. This article discusses a number of theories and classification practices that Brown developed. In particular, it investigates his views on the order of main classes, on the phenomenon of "concrete" subjects, and on the need for synthesized notations. It traces these ideas briefly into the future through the work of S. R. Ranganathan, the Classification Research Group, and the second edition of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification system. It concludes that Brown's work warrants further study for the light it may shed on current classification theory and practice.
    Source
    Library trends. 52(2004) no.4, S.702-718
    Type
    a
  5. Beghtol, C.: Naïve classification systems and the global information society (2004) 0.00 
    0.0040477123 = product of:
  0.014841611 = sum of:
    0.0033818933 = weight(_text_:a in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0033818933 = score(doc=3483,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 3483, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3483)
    0.0024550997 = weight(_text_:s in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024550997 = score(doc=3483,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.08494043 = fieldWeight in 3483, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3483)
    0.009004618 = product of:
      0.018009236 = sum of:
        0.018009236 = weight(_text_:22 in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018009236 = score(doc=3483,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09309476 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.026584605 = 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(1/2)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)
    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
    Type
    a
  6. Beghtol, C.: Access to fiction : A problem in classification theory and practice. Pt.1-2 (1989-90) 0.00 
    0.002276249 = product of:
  0.012519369 = sum of:
    0.0066271294 = weight(_text_:a in 909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066271294 = score(doc=909,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 909, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=909)
    0.00589224 = weight(_text_:s in 909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00589224 = score(doc=909,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.20385705 = fieldWeight in 909, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=909)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Source
    International classification. Pt.1: 16(1989), S.134-140; Pt.2: 17(1990), S.21-26
    Type
    a
  7. Beghtol, C.: Bibliographic classification theory and text linguistics : aboutness, analysis, intertextuality and the cognitive act of classifying documents (1986) 0.00 
    0.002146068 = product of:
  0.011803374 = sum of:
    0.0062481174 = weight(_text_:a in 1346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0062481174 = score(doc=1346,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 1346, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1346)
    0.0055552567 = weight(_text_:s in 1346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0055552567 = score(doc=1346,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.19219826 = fieldWeight in 1346, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1346)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 42(1986), S.84-113
    Type
    a
  8. Beghtol, C.: Within, among, between : three faces of interdisciplinarity (1996) 0.00 
    0.0018778095 = product of:
  0.010327952 = sum of:
    0.005467103 = weight(_text_:a in 6084) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005467103 = score(doc=6084,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 6084, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6084)
    0.0048608496 = weight(_text_:s in 6084) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0048608496 = score(doc=6084,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.16817348 = fieldWeight in 6084, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6084)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Source
    Canadian journal of information and library science. 20(1996) no.2, S.30-41
    Type
    a
  9. Beghtol, C.: ¬The facet concept as a universal principle of subdivision (2006) 0.00 
    0.0017568587 = product of:
  0.009662722 = sum of:
    0.0072322977 = weight(_text_:a in 1483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0072322977 = score(doc=1483,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.23593865 = fieldWeight in 1483, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1483)
    0.0024304248 = weight(_text_:s in 1483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024304248 = score(doc=1483,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 1483, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1483)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    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.
    Pages
    S.41-52
    Source
    Knowledge organization, information systems and other essays: Professor A. Neelameghan Festschrift. Ed. by K.S. Raghavan and K.N. Prasad
    Type
    a
  10. Beghtol, C.: Professional values and ethics in knowledge organization and cataloguing : observations on standards and implementation (1998) 0.00 
    0.001609551 = product of:
  0.00885253 = sum of:
    0.0046860883 = weight(_text_:a in 3026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0046860883 = score(doc=3026,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 3026, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3026)
    0.0041664424 = weight(_text_:s in 3026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0041664424 = score(doc=3026,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.14414869 = fieldWeight in 3026, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3026)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Source
    Journal of information ethics. 17(2008) no.1, S.12-19
    Type
    a
  11. Beghtol, C.: ¬The classification of fiction : the development of a system based on theoretical principles (1994) 0.00 
    0.0015866682 = product of:
  0.008726675 = sum of:
    0.003865826 = weight(_text_:a in 3413) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003865826 = score(doc=3413,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 3413, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3413)
    0.0048608496 = weight(_text_:s in 3413) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0048608496 = score(doc=3413,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.16817348 = fieldWeight in 3413, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3413)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    The work is an adaptation of the author's dissertation and has the following chapters: (1) background and introduction; (2) a problem in classification theory; (3) previous fiction analysis theories and systems and 'The left hand of darkness'; (4) fiction warrant and critical warrant; (5) experimental fiction analysis system (EFAS); (6) application and evaluation of EFAS. Appendix 1 gives references to fiction analysis systems and appendix 2 lists EFAS coding sheets
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Knowledge organization 21(1994) no.3, S.165-167 (W. Bies); JASIS 46(1995) no.5, S.389-390 (E.G. Bierbaum); Canadian journal of information and library science 20(1995) nos.3/4, S.52-53 (L. Rees-Potter)
    Pages
    366 S
  12. Beghtol, C.: Semantic validity : concepts of warrants in bibliographic classification systems (1986) 0.00 
    0.0013856413 = product of:
  0.0076210266 = sum of:
    0.0051659266 = weight(_text_:a in 3487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0051659266 = score(doc=3487,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 3487, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3487)
    0.0024550997 = weight(_text_:s in 3487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024550997 = score(doc=3487,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.08494043 = fieldWeight in 3487, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3487)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    This paper argues that the semantic axis of bibliographic classification systems can be found in the various warrants that have been used to justify the utility of classification systems. Classificationists, theorists, and critics have emphasized the syntactic aspects of classification theories and systems, but a number of semantic warrants can be identified. The evolution of four semantic warrants is traced through the development of twentieth-century classification theory: literary warrant, scientific/philosophical warrant, educational warrant, and cultural warrant. It is concluded that further examination of semantic warrants might make possible a rationalized approach to the creation of classification systems for particular uses. The attention of scholars on faceted schemes and classificatory structures had heretofore pulled our attention to the syntactic aspects (e.g., concept division and citation order), with semantics being considered more or less a question of the terms and their relationships and somewhat taken for granted, or at least construed as a unitary aspect. Attention is on the choice of the classes and their meaning, as well as their connection to the world, and not so much on their syntactic relationship. This notion is developed by providing an historical and conceptual overview of the various kinds of warrant discernible in working with bibliographic systems. In Beghtol's definition, warrant concerns more than just the selection of terms, but rather the mapping of a classification system to the context and uses.
    Footnote
    Vgl.: Kwasnik, B.H.: Semantic warrant: a pivotal concept for our field. In: Knowledge organization. 37(2010) no.2, S.106-110.
    Source
    Library resources and technical services. 30(1986), S.109-125
    Type
    a
  13. Beghtol, C.: Classification theory (2010) 0.00 
    0.0013313505 = product of:
  0.007322428 = sum of:
    0.0052392064 = weight(_text_:a in 3761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0052392064 = score(doc=3761,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 3761, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3761)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 3761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=3761,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 3761, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3761)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    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.
    Pages
    S.1045-1060
    Type
    a
  14. Beghtol, C.: ¬L'¬efficacia del recupero (1993) 0.00 
    0.0013083118 = product of:
  0.007195715 = sum of:
    0.0044180867 = weight(_text_:a in 4018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044180867 = score(doc=4018,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 4018, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4018)
    0.0027776284 = weight(_text_:s in 4018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0027776284 = score(doc=4018,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 4018, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4018)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    Proposes a new experimental methodology for evaluating the results of library research from the user's viewpoint. Illustrates the theory by comparing the efficacy of information retrieved from 2 document catalogues, identical except that one is alphabetical and the other numerical/verbal. The methodology utilises the concept of 3 dependent variables: 'promising references retrieved' by the researcher; 'documents read'; and 'documents cited'. Claims that the retrieval effectiveness of the techniques outlined compares favourably with that of W.S. Cooper's methodology
    Source
    Biblioteche oggi. 11(1993) nos.6/7, S.52-60
    Type
    a
  15. Beghtol, C.: ¬A whole, its kinds, and its parts (2000) 0.00 
    0.0013083118 = product of:
  0.007195715 = sum of:
    0.0044180867 = weight(_text_:a in 91) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044180867 = score(doc=91,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 91, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=91)
    0.0027776284 = weight(_text_:s in 91) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0027776284 = score(doc=91,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 91, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=91)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Pages
    S.313-319
    Type
    a
  16. Beghtol, C.: Within, among, between : three faces of interdisciplinarity (1995) 0.00 
    0.001302741 = product of:
  0.0071650753 = sum of:
    0.0047346503 = weight(_text_:a in 1297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0047346503 = score(doc=1297,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 1297, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1297)
    0.0024304248 = weight(_text_:s in 1297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024304248 = score(doc=1297,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 1297, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1297)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    Interdisciplinarity is a means by which the unit of information and the separateness of disciplines can work together harmoniously. Characterizes disciplinarity and the role of information science in serving other disciplines as well as its own discipline. Interdisciplinarity relationships occur among all knowledge seeking disciplines, (including LIS), and those between LIS and every other filed of knowledge production, utilization and practical action. Considers how LIS can promote interdisciplinarity relationships and research
    Pages
    S.104-107
    Source
    Connectedness: information, systems, people, organizations. Proceedings of CAIS/ACSI 95, the proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Canadian Association for Information Science. Ed. by Hope A. Olson and Denis B. Ward
    Type
    a
  17. Beghtol, C.: Classification for information retrieval and classification for knowledge discovery : relationships between "professional" and "naïve" classifications (2003) 0.00 
    0.001240201 = product of:
  0.0068211053 = sum of:
    0.0043660053 = weight(_text_:a in 3021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0043660053 = score(doc=3021,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 3021, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3021)
    0.0024550997 = weight(_text_:s in 3021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024550997 = score(doc=3021,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.08494043 = fieldWeight in 3021, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3021)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    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
    Type
    a
  18. Beghtol, C.: ¬A proposed ethical warrant for global knowledge representation and organization systems (2002) 0.00 
    0.0012307836 = product of:
  0.0067693098 = sum of:
    0.0046860883 = weight(_text_:a in 4462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0046860883 = score(doc=4462,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 4462, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4462)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 4462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=4462,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 4462, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4462)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    New technologies have made the increased globalization of information resources and services possible. In this situation, it is ethically and intellectually beneficial to protect cultural and information diversity. This paper analyzes the problems of creating ethically based globally accessible and culturally acceptable knowledge representation and organization systems, and foundation principles for the ethical treatment of different cultures are established on the basis of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The concept of "cultural hospitality", which can act as a theoretical framework for the ethical warrant of knowledge representation and organization systems, is described. This broad discussion is grounded with an extended example of one cultural universal, the concept of time and its expression in calendars. Methods of achieving cultural and user hospitality in information systems are discussed for their potential for creating ethically based systems. It is concluded that cultural hospitality is a promising concept for assessing the ethical foundations of new knowledge representation and organization systems and for planning revisions to existing systems.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 58(2002) no.5, S.507-532
    Type
    a
  19. Beghtol, C.: Ethical decision-making for knowledge representation and organization systems for global use (2005) 0.00 
    0.001144773 = product of:
  0.006296251 = sum of:
    0.003865826 = weight(_text_:a in 1648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003865826 = score(doc=1648,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 1648, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1648)
    0.0024304248 = weight(_text_:s in 1648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024304248 = score(doc=1648,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 1648, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1648)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    In this article, ethical decision-making methods for creating, revising, and maintaining knowledge representation and organization systems are described, particularly in relation to the global use of these systems. The analysis uses a three-level model and the literature on ethically based decision-making in the social and technical sciences. In addition, methods for making these kinds of decisions in an ethical manner are presented. This multidisciplinary approach is generalizable to other information areas and is useful for encouraging the development of ethics policies for knowledge representation and organization systems and for other kinds of systems or institutions.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.9, S.903-912
    Type
    a
  20. Beghtol, C.: Nancy J. Williamson and the International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO) (2010) 0.00 
    0.001144773 = product of:
  0.006296251 = sum of:
    0.003865826 = weight(_text_:a in 3566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003865826 = score(doc=3566,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 3566, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3566)
    0.0024304248 = weight(_text_:s in 3566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024304248 = score(doc=3566,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 3566, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3566)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Footnote
    Beitrag in einem special issue: Is there a catalog in your future? Celebrating Nancy J. Williamson: Scholar, educator, colleague, mentor
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 48(2010) no.1, S.26-35
    Type
    a

Years

Languages

  • e 30
  • i 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 30
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Themes