Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.052247636 = product of:
  0.07837145 = sum of:
    0.06758316 = weight(_text_:specialist in 2924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06758316 = score(doc=2924,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.32440975 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.666449 = idf(docFreq=152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04866305 = queryNorm
        0.20832653 = fieldWeight in 2924, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.666449 = idf(docFreq=152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2924)
    0.010788289 = product of:
      0.021576578 = sum of:
        0.021576578 = weight(_text_:librarians in 2924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021576578 = score(doc=2924,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.09898266 = fieldWeight in 2924, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2924)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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.

0.013186343 = product of:
  0.03955903 = sum of:
    0.03955903 = product of:
      0.07911806 = sum of:
        0.07911806 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07911806 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:41:14

0.0076920334 = product of:
  0.0230761 = sum of:
    0.0230761 = product of:
      0.0461522 = sum of:
        0.0461522 = weight(_text_:22 in 2550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0461522 = score(doc=2550,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

9. 2.1997 18:44:22

0.0071921926 = product of:
  0.021576578 = sum of:
    0.021576578 = product of:
      0.043153156 = sum of:
        0.043153156 = weight(_text_:librarians in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043153156 = score(doc=6089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21798341 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = queryNorm
            0.19796532 = fieldWeight in 6089, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.479444 = idf(docFreq=1362, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6089)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.0065931715 = product of:
  0.019779515 = sum of:
    0.019779515 = product of:
      0.03955903 = sum of:
        0.03955903 = weight(_text_:22 in 6392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03955903 = score(doc=6392,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17040971 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04866305 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

10. 8.2001 13:22:14