Search (38 results, page 1 of 2)

0.033184934 = product of:
  0.082962334 = sum of:
    0.07581701 = weight(_text_:g in 5398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07581701 = score(doc=5398,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15225126 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.49797297 = fieldWeight in 5398, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5398)
    0.0071453196 = weight(_text_:a in 5398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071453196 = score(doc=5398,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.046739966 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 5398, 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=5398)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Series

034-130-E+G+S

0.013553713 = product of:
  0.033884283 = sum of:
    0.024009973 = weight(_text_:u in 4826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024009973 = score(doc=4826,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13273303 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.1808892 = fieldWeight in 4826, 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=4826)
    0.00987431 = weight(_text_:a in 4826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00987431 = score(doc=4826,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.046739966 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.21126054 = fieldWeight in 4826, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4826)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Facet analysis is proposed as a general theory of knowledge organization, with an associated methodology that may be applied to the development of terminology tools in a variety of contexts and formats. Faceted classifications originated as a means of representing complexity in semantic content that facilitates logical organization and effective retrieval in a physical environment. This is achieved through meticulous analysis of concepts, their structural and functional status (based on fundamental categories), and their inter-relationships. These features provide an excellent basis for the general conceptual modelling of domains, and for the generation of KOS other than systematic classifications. This is demonstrated by the adoption of a faceted approach to many web search and visualization tools, and by the emergence of a facet based methodology for the construction of thesauri. Current work on the Bliss Bibliographic Classification (Second Edition) is investigating the ways in which the full complexity of faceted structures may be represented through encoded data, capable of generating intellectually and mechanically compatible forms of indexing tools from a single source. It is suggested that a number of research questions relating to the Semantic Web could be tackled through the medium of facet analysis.

Source

Classification and ontology: formal approaches and access to knowledge: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar, 19-20 September 2011, The Hague, The Netherlands. Eds.: A. Slavic u. E. Civallero

Type

a

0.012521054 = product of:
  0.031302635 = sum of:
    0.024009973 = weight(_text_:u in 395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024009973 = score(doc=395,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13273303 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.1808892 = fieldWeight in 395, 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=395)
    0.0072926614 = weight(_text_:a in 395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0072926614 = score(doc=395,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.046739966 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 395, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=395)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

LCSH are increasingly seen as 'the' English language controlled vocabulary, despite their lack of a theoretical foundation, and their evident US bias. In mapping exercises between national subject heading lists, and in exercises in digital resource organization and management, LCSH are often chosen because of the lack of any other widely accepted English language standard for subject cataloguing. It is therefore important that the basic nature of LCSH, their advantages, and their limitations, are well understood both by LIS practitioners and those in the wider information community. Information professionals who attended library school before 1995 - and many more recent library school graduates - are unlikely to have had a formal introduction to LCSH. Paraprofessionals who undertake cataloguing are similarly unlikely to have enjoyed an induction to the broad principles of LCSH. There is currently no compact guide to LCSH written from a UK viewpoint, and this eminently practical text fills that gap. It features topics including: background and history of LCSH; subject heading lists; structure and display in LCSH; form of entry; application of LCSH; document analysis; main headings; topical, geographical and free-floating sub-divisions; building compound headings; name headings; headings for literature, art, music, history and law; and, LCSH in the online environment. There is a strong emphasis throughout on worked examples and practical exercises in the application of the scheme, and a full glossary of terms is supplied. No prior knowledge or experience of subject cataloguing is assumed. This is an indispensable guide to LCSH for practitioners and students alike from a well-known and popular author.

Theme

Grundlagen u. Einführungen: Allgemeine Literatur

0.01141697 = product of:
  0.028542424 = sum of:
    0.009320162 = weight(_text_:a in 2550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009320162 = score(doc=2550,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.046739966 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 2550, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2550)
    0.019222261 = product of:
      0.038444523 = sum of:
        0.038444523 = weight(_text_:22 in 2550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038444523 = score(doc=2550,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14195032 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040536046 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2550, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2550)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The paper takes a retrospective look at the work of Henry Evelyn Bliss, classificationist theorist and author of the Bibliographic Classification. Major features of his writings and philosophy are examined and evaluated for the originality of their contribution to the corpus of knowledge in the discipline. Reactions to Bliss's work are analysed, as is his influence on classification theory of the 20th century. Contemporary work on knowledge organization is seen to continue a number of strands from Bliss's original writings. His standing as a classificationist is compared with that of Ranganathan, with the conclusion that he is not given the credit he deserves.

Date

9. 2.1997 18:44:22

Type

a

0.009603989 = product of:
  0.048019946 = sum of:
    0.048019946 = weight(_text_:u in 2098) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048019946 = score(doc=2098,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13273303 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.3617784 = fieldWeight in 2098, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2098)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Theme

Grundlagen u. Einführungen: Allgemeine Literatur

0.008611491 = product of:
  0.021528726 = sum of:
    0.0050525037 = weight(_text_:a in 6392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050525037 = score(doc=6392,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.046739966 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 6392, 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=6392)
    0.016476223 = product of:
      0.032952446 = sum of:
        0.032952446 = weight(_text_:22 in 6392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032952446 = score(doc=6392,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14195032 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040536046 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 6392, 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=6392)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The ways in which notation can be used to express the content of documents to which it relates are various. At the most superficial level notation can correspond to the hierarchical structure of the schedules or link to literal components. The notation of compound concepts can express the structure and composition of the compound, and systems exist in which symbols denote the functional roles of the constituent elements and the relationships between them. At the highest level notation can be used to mirror the actual structure of those entities which it represents, as in the case of mathematical systems or chemical compounds. Methods of displaying these structures are examined, and the practicality in a documentary context is questioned, with particular reference to recent revision work on the chemistry class of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification 2nd edition (BC2)

Date

10. 8.2001 13:22:14

Type

a

0.00707239 = product of:
  0.017680975 = sum of:
    0.009603988 = weight(_text_:u in 2824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009603988 = score(doc=2824,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13273303 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.07235568 = fieldWeight in 2824, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2824)
    0.008076986 = weight(_text_:a in 2824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008076986 = score(doc=2824,freq=92.0), product of:
        0.046739966 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.17280684 = fieldWeight in 2824, product of:
          9.591663 = tf(freq=92.0), with freq of:
            92.0 = termFreq=92.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2824)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

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

Footnote

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

Theme

Grundlagen u. Einführungen: Allgemeine Literatur

0.0065904893 = product of:
  0.032952446 = sum of:
    0.032952446 = product of:
      0.06590489 = sum of:
        0.06590489 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06590489 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14195032 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040536046 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6048, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6048)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:41:14

0.0059719183 = product of:
  0.014929796 = sum of:
    0.009603988 = weight(_text_:u in 2924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009603988 = score(doc=2924,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13273303 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.07235568 = fieldWeight in 2924, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2924)
    0.005325807 = weight(_text_:a in 2924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005325807 = score(doc=2924,freq=40.0), product of:
        0.046739966 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.11394546 = fieldWeight in 2924, product of:
          6.3245554 = tf(freq=40.0), with freq of:
            40.0 = termFreq=40.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2924)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Many information professionals working in small units today fail to find the published tools for subject-based organization that are appropriate to their local needs, whether they are archivists, special librarians, information officers, or knowledge or content managers. Large established standards for document description and organization are too unwieldy, unnecessarily detailed, or too expensive to install and maintain. In other cases the available systems are insufficient for a specialist environment, or don't bring things together in a helpful way. A purpose built, in-house system would seem to be the answer, but too often the skills necessary to create one are lacking. This practical text examines the criteria relevant to the selection of a subject-management system, describes the characteristics of some common types of subject tool, and takes the novice step by step through the process of creating a system for a specialist environment. The methodology employed is a standard technique for the building of a thesaurus that incidentally creates a compatible classification or taxonomy, both of which may be used in a variety of ways for document or information management. Key areas covered are: What is a thesaurus? Tools for subject access and retrieval; what a thesaurus is used for? Why use a thesaurus? Examples of thesauri; the structure of a thesaurus; thesaural relationships; practical thesaurus construction; the vocabulary of the thesaurus; building the systematic structure; conversion to alphabetic format; forms of entry in the thesaurus; maintaining the thesaurus; thesaurus software; and; the wider environment. Essential for the practising information professional, this guide is also valuable for students of library and information science.

Footnote

In den stärker ins Detail gehenden Kapiteln weist Broughton zunächst auf die Bedeutung des systematischen Teils eines Thesaurus neben dem alphabetischen Teil hin und erläutert dann die Elemente des letzteren, wobei neben den gängigen Thesaurusrelationen auch die Option der Ausstattung der Einträge mit Notationen eines Klassifikationssystems erwähnt wird. Die Thesaurusrelationen selbst werden später noch in einem weiteren Kapitel ausführlicher diskutiert, wobei etwa auch die polyhierarchische Beziehung thematisiert wird. Zwei Kapitel zur Vokabularkontrolle führen in Aspekte wie Behandlung von Synonymen, Vermeidung von Mehrdeutigkeit, Wahl der bevorzugten Terme sowie die Formen von Thesauruseinträgen ein (grammatische Form, Schreibweise, Zeichenvorrat, Singular/Plural, Komposita bzw. deren Zerlegung usw.). Insgesamt acht Kapitel - in der Abfolge mit den bisher erwähnten Abschnitten didaktisch geschickt vermischt - stehen unter dem Motto "Building a thesaurus". Kurz zusammengefasst, geht es dabei um folgende Tätigkeiten und Prozesse: - Sammlung des Vokabulars unter Nutzung entsprechender Quellen; - Termextraktion aus den Titeln von Dokumenten und Probleme hiebei; - Analyse des Vokabulars (Facettenmethode); - Einbau einer internen Struktur (Facetten und Sub-Facetten, Anordnung der Terme); - Erstellung einer hierarchischen Struktur und deren Repräsentation; - Zusammengesetzte Themen bzw. Begriffe (Facettenanordnung: filing order vs. citation order); - Konvertierung der taxonomischen Anordnung in ein alphabetisches Format (Auswahl der Vorzugsbegriffe, Identifizieren hierarchischer Beziehungen, verwandter Begriffe usw.); - Erzeugen der endgültigen Thesaurus-Einträge.
Weitere Rez. in: New Library World 108(2007) nos.3/4, S.190-191 (K.V. Trickey): "Vanda has provided a very useful work that will enable any reader who is prepared to follow her instruction to produce a thesaurus that will be a quality language-based subject access tool that will make the task of information retrieval easier and more effective. Once again I express my gratitude to Vanda for producing another excellent book." - Electronic Library 24(2006) no.6, S.866-867 (A.G. Smith): "Essential thesaurus construction is an ideal instructional text, with clear bullet point summaries at the ends of sections, and relevant and up to date references, putting thesauri in context with the general theory of information retrieval. But it will also be a valuable reference for any information professional developing or using a controlled vocabulary." - KO 33(2006) no.4, S.215-216 (M.P. Satija)

Theme

Grundlagen u. Einführungen: Allgemeine Literatur

0.0024752114 = product of:
  0.012376057 = sum of:
    0.012376057 = weight(_text_:a in 4607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012376057 = score(doc=4607,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.046739966 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.26478532 = fieldWeight in 4607, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4607)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Type

a

0.0024752114 = product of:
  0.012376057 = sum of:
    0.012376057 = weight(_text_:a in 6410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012376057 = score(doc=6410,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.046739966 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.26478532 = fieldWeight in 6410, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6410)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Type

a

0.0023578354 = product of:
  0.011789177 = sum of:
    0.011789177 = weight(_text_:a in 353) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011789177 = score(doc=353,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.046739966 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.25222903 = fieldWeight in 353, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=353)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Type

a

0.0023578354 = product of:
  0.011789177 = sum of:
    0.011789177 = weight(_text_:a in 3784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011789177 = score(doc=3784,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.046739966 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.25222903 = fieldWeight in 3784, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3784)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Type

a

0.002143596 = product of:
  0.01071798 = sum of:
    0.01071798 = weight(_text_:a in 1857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01071798 = score(doc=1857,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.046739966 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.22931081 = fieldWeight in 1857, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1857)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Facet analysis is an established methodology for building classifications and subject indexing systems, but has been less rigorously applied to thesauri. The process of creating a compatible thesaurus from the schedules of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification 2nd edition highlights the ways in which the conceptual relationships in a subject field are handled in the two types of retrieval languages. An underlying uniformity of theory is established, and the way in which software can manage the relationships is discussed. The manner of displaying verbal expressions of concepts (vocabulary control) is also considered, but is found to be less well controlled in the classification than in the thesaurus. Nevertheless, there is good reason to think that facet analysis provides a sound basis for structuring a variety of knowledge organization tools.

Content

Beitrag eines Themenheftes "Facets: a fruitful notion in many domains".

Type

a

0.0021303229 = product of:
  0.010651614 = sum of:
    0.010651614 = weight(_text_:a in 537) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010651614 = score(doc=537,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.046739966 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.22789092 = fieldWeight in 537, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=537)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The presentation will examine the potential of facet analysis as a basis for determining status and relationships of concepts in subject based tools using a controlled vocabulary, and the extent to which it can be used as a general theory of knowledge organization as opposed to a methodology for structuring classifications only.

0.0020626762 = product of:
  0.010313381 = sum of:
    0.010313381 = weight(_text_:a in 593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010313381 = score(doc=593,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.046739966 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.22065444 = fieldWeight in 593, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=593)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to identify the most important factors and features in the evolution of thesauri and ontologies through a dialectic model. This model relies on a dialectic process or idea which could be discovered via a dialectic method. This method has focused on identifying the logical relationship between a beginning proposition, or an idea called a thesis, a negation of that idea called the antithesis, and the result of the conflict between the two ideas, called a synthesis. During the creation of knowl­edge organization systems (KOSs), the identification of logical relations between different ideas has been made possible through the consideration and use of the most influential methods and tools such as dictionaries, Roget's Thesaurus, thesaurus, micro-, macro- and metathesauri, ontology, lower, middle and upper level ontologies. The analysis process has adapted a historical methodology, more specifically a dialectic method and documentary method as the reasoning process. This supports our arguments and synthesizes a method for the analysis of research results. Confirmed by the research results, the principle of unity has shown to be the most important factor in the development and evolution of the structure of knowl­edge organization systems and their types. There are various types of unity when considering the analysis of logical relations. These include the principle of unity of alphabetical order, unity of science, semantic unity, structural unity and conceptual unity. The results have clearly demonstrated a movement from plurality to unity in the assembling of the complex structure of knowl­edge organization systems to increase information and knowl­edge storage and retrieval performance.

Type

a

0.0020210014 = product of:
  0.010105007 = sum of:
    0.010105007 = weight(_text_:a in 5994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010105007 = score(doc=5994,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.046739966 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 5994, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5994)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

We examine the way in which religion is managed in the major library classification schemes and in archival practice and how and why bias and misrepresentation occur. Broad definitions of what is meant by diversity and religious pluralism and why it is a cause for concern precede a discussion of the standard model of interreligious attitudes (exclusivism/inclusivism/pluralism) with particular reference to the philosophy of John Hick. This model is used as a lens through which to evaluate knowledge organization systems (KOSs) for evidence of comparable theoretical positions and to suggest a possible typology of religious KOSs. Archival and library practice are considered, and, despite their very different approaches, found to have some similarities in the way in which traditional societal structures have affected bias and misrepresentation of religious beliefs. There is, nevertheless, evidence of a general move towards a more pluralistic attitude to different faiths.

Type

a

0.001974862 = product of:
  0.00987431 = sum of:
    0.00987431 = weight(_text_:a in 4065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00987431 = score(doc=4065,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.046739966 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.21126054 = fieldWeight in 4065, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4065)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Recent revision of UDC classes has aimed at implementing a more faceted approach. Many compound classes have been removed from the main tables, and more radical revisions of classes (particularly those for Medicine and Religion) have introduced a rigorous analysis, a clearer sense of citation order, and building of compound classes according to a more logical system syntax. The faceted approach provides a means of formalizing the relationships in the classification and making them explicit for machine recognition. In the Bliss Bibliographic Classification (BC2) (which has been a source for both UDC classes mentioned above), terminologies are encoded for automatic generation of hierarchical and associative relationships. Nevertheless, difficulties are encountered in vocabulary control, and a similar phenomenon is observed in UDC. Current work has revealed differences in the vocabulary of humanities and science, notably the way in which terms in the humanities should be handled when these are semantically complex. Achieving a balance between rigour in the structure of the classification and the complexity of natural language expression remains partially unresolved at present, but provides a fertile field for further research.

Content

Teil von: Papers from Classification at a Crossroads: Multiple Directions to Usability: International UDC Seminar 2009-Part 2

Type

a

0.0019054186 = product of:
  0.009527093 = sum of:
    0.009527093 = weight(_text_:a in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009527093 = score(doc=6089,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.046739966 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 6089, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6089)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The genesis of the Group: In 1948, as part of the post-war renewal of library services in the United Kingdom, the Royal Society organized a Conference on Scientific Information.' What, at the time, must have seemed a minute part of the grand plan, but was later to have a transforming effect on the theory of knowledge organization throughout the remainder of the century, was the setting up of a standing committee of a small group of specialists to investigate the organization and retrieval of scientific information. In 1950, the secretary of that committee, J.D. Bernal, suggested that it might be appropriate to ask a group of librarians to do a study of the problem. After a couple of years of informal discussion it was agreed, in February 1952, to form a Classification Research Group - the CRG as it has become known to subsequent generations. The Group published a brief corporate statement of its views in the Library Association Record in June 1953 and submitted a memorandum to the Library Association Research Committee in May 1955, entitled "The need for a faceted classification as the basis of all methods of information retrieval". This memorandum was published in the proceedings of what has become known as the "Dorking Conference" in 1957. Of the original fifteen members, four still belong to the Group, three of whom are in regular attendance: Eric Coates, Douglas Foskett and Jack Mills. Brian Vickery ceased attending regularly in the 1960s but has retained his interest in their doings: he was present at the 150th celebratory meeting in 1984 and played an active part in the "Dorking revisited" conference held in 1997. The stated aim of the Group was 'To review the basic principles of bibliographic classification, unhampered by allegiance to any particular published scheme' and it can truly be stated that the work of its members has had a fundamental influence on the teaching and practice of information retrieval. It is paradoxical that this collection of people has exerted such a strong theoretical sway because their aims were from the outset and remain essentially practical. This fact is sometimes overlooked in the literature on knowledge organization: there is a tendency to get carried away, and for researchers of today to concentrate so hard on what might be that they overlook what is needed, useful and practical - the entire objective of any retrieval system.

Type

a

0.001890474 = product of:
  0.00945237 = sum of:
    0.00945237 = weight(_text_:a in 2631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00945237 = score(doc=2631,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.046739966 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040536046 = queryNorm
        0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 2631, 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=2631)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

Type

a