Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.04170625 = product of:
  0.12511875 = sum of:
    0.09062983 = weight(_text_:21st in 2681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09062983 = score(doc=2681,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2381352 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.74105 = idf(docFreq=385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.3805814 = fieldWeight in 2681, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.74105 = idf(docFreq=385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2681)
    0.03448892 = product of:
      0.06897784 = sum of:
        0.06897784 = weight(_text_:century in 2681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06897784 = score(doc=2681,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20775084 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0085325 = idf(docFreq=802, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041479383 = queryNorm
            0.33202195 = fieldWeight in 2681, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.0085325 = idf(docFreq=802, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2681)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Source

Challenges in knowledge representation and organization for the 21st century: Integration of knowledge across boundaries. Proceedings of the 7th ISKO International Conference Granada, Spain, July 10-13, 2002. Ed.: M. López-Huertas

0.0057481537 = product of:
  0.03448892 = sum of:
    0.03448892 = product of:
      0.06897784 = sum of:
        0.06897784 = weight(_text_:century in 2028) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06897784 = score(doc=2028,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20775084 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0085325 = idf(docFreq=802, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041479383 = queryNorm
            0.33202195 = fieldWeight in 2028, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.0085325 = idf(docFreq=802, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2028)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Bibliographic classification systems purport to organize the world of knowledge for information storage and retrieval purposes in libraries and bibliographies, both manual and online. The major systems that have predominated during the 20th century were originally predicated on the academic disciplines. This structural principle is no longer adequate because multidisciplinray knowledge production has overtaken more traditional disciplinary perspectives and produced communities of cooperation whose documents cannot be accomodated in a disciplinary structure. This paper addresses the problems the major classifications face, reports some attempts to revise these systems to accomodate multidisciplinary works more appropriately, and describes some theoretical research perspectives that attempt to reorient classification research toward the pluralistic needs of multidisciplinary knowledge creation and the perspectives of different discourse communities. Traditionally, the primary desiderata of classification systems were mutual exclusivity and joint exhaustivity. The need to respond to multidisciplinary research may mean that hospitality will replace mutual exclusivity and joint exhaustivity as the most needed and useful characteristics of classification systems in both theory and practice

0.0057481537 = product of:
  0.03448892 = sum of:
    0.03448892 = product of:
      0.06897784 = sum of:
        0.06897784 = weight(_text_:century in 44) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06897784 = score(doc=44,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20775084 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0085325 = idf(docFreq=802, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041479383 = queryNorm
            0.33202195 = fieldWeight in 44, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.0085325 = idf(docFreq=802, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=44)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In this century, knowledge creation, production, dissemination and use have changed profoundly. Intellectual and physical barriers have been substantially reduced by the rise of multidisciplinarity and by the influence of computerization, particularly by the spread of the World Wide Web (WWW). Bibliographic classification systems need to respond to this situation. Three possible strategic responses are described: 1) adopting an existing system; 2) adapting an existing system; and 3) finding new structural principles for classification systems. Examples of these three responses are given. An extended example of the third option uses the knowledge outline in the Spectrum of Britannica Online to suggest a theory of "viewpoint warrant" that could be used to incorporate differing perspectives into general classification systems

0.0047901277 = product of:
  0.028740766 = sum of:
    0.028740766 = product of:
      0.05748153 = sum of:
        0.05748153 = weight(_text_:century in 1856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05748153 = score(doc=1856,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20775084 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0085325 = idf(docFreq=802, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041479383 = queryNorm
            0.27668494 = fieldWeight in 1856, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.0085325 = idf(docFreq=802, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1856)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

During the twentieth century, bibliographic classification theory underwent a structural revolution. The first modern bibliographic classifications were top-down systems that started at the universe of knowledge and subdivided that universe downward to minute subclasses. After the invention of faceted classification by S.R. Ranganathan, the ideal was to build bottom-up classifications that started with the universe of concepts and built upward to larger and larger faceted classes. This ideal has not been achieved, and the two kinds of classification systems are not mutually exclusive. This paper examines the process by which this structural revolution was accomplished by looking at the spread of facet theory after 1924 when Ranganathan attended the School of Librarianship, London, through selected classification textbooks that were published after that date. To this end, the paper examines the role of W.C.B. Sayers as a teacher and author of three editions of The Manual of Classification for Librarians and Bibliographers. Sayers influenced both Ranganathan and the various members of the Classification Research Group (CRG) who were his students. Further, the paper contrasts the methods of evaluating classification systems that arose between Sayers's Canons of Classification in 1915- 1916 and J. Mills's A Modern Outline of Library Classification in 1960 in order to demonstrate the speed with which one kind of classificatory structure was overtaken by another.

0.0047901277 = product of:
  0.028740766 = sum of:
    0.028740766 = product of:
      0.05748153 = sum of:
        0.05748153 = weight(_text_:century in 3487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05748153 = score(doc=3487,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20775084 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0085325 = idf(docFreq=802, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041479383 = queryNorm
            0.27668494 = fieldWeight in 3487, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.0085325 = idf(docFreq=802, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3487)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.0037465894 = product of:
  0.022479536 = sum of:
    0.022479536 = product of:
      0.044959072 = sum of:
        0.044959072 = weight(_text_:22 in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044959072 = score(doc=5830,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14525373 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041479383 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

5. 8.2006 13:22:08

0.0023416183 = product of:
  0.01404971 = sum of:
    0.01404971 = product of:
      0.02809942 = sum of:
        0.02809942 = weight(_text_:22 in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02809942 = score(doc=3483,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14525373 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041479383 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Pages

S.19-22