Search (21 results, page 1 of 2)

0.053701937 = product of:
  0.16110581 = sum of:
    0.07552487 = weight(_text_:21st in 1417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07552487 = score(doc=1417,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2381352 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.74105 = idf(docFreq=385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.3171512 = fieldWeight in 1417, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.74105 = idf(docFreq=385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1417)
    0.08558095 = sum of:
      0.05748153 = weight(_text_:century in 1417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05748153 = score(doc=1417,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20775084 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0085325 = idf(docFreq=802, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041479383 = queryNorm
          0.27668494 = fieldWeight in 1417, 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=1417)
      0.02809942 = weight(_text_:22 in 1417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02809942 = score(doc=1417,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14525373 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041479383 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1417, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1417)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.053701937 = product of:
  0.16110581 = sum of:
    0.07552487 = weight(_text_:21st in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07552487 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2381352 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.74105 = idf(docFreq=385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.3171512 = fieldWeight in 1418, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.74105 = idf(docFreq=385, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1418)
    0.08558095 = sum of:
      0.05748153 = weight(_text_:century in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05748153 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20775084 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0085325 = idf(docFreq=802, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041479383 = queryNorm
          0.27668494 = fieldWeight in 1418, 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=1418)
      0.02809942 = weight(_text_:22 in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02809942 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14525373 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041479383 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1418, 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=1418)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.033940528 = product of:
  0.10182158 = sum of:
    0.079342045 = weight(_text_:history in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079342045 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19296135 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.41118103 = fieldWeight in 5083, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5083)
    0.022479536 = product of:
      0.044959072 = sum of:
        0.044959072 = weight(_text_:22 in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044959072 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14525373 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041479383 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5083, 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=5083)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The concept of faceted classification has its long history and importance in the human civilization. Recently, more and more consumer Web sites adopt the idea of facet analysis to organize and display their products or services. The aim of this article is to review the origin and develpment of faceted classification, as well as its concepts, essence, advantage and limitation. Further, the applications of faceted classification in various domians have been explored.

Date

27. 5.2007 22:19:35

0.030078119 = product of:
  0.090234354 = sum of:
    0.049588777 = weight(_text_:history in 4154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049588777 = score(doc=4154,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19296135 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.25698814 = fieldWeight in 4154, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4154)
    0.04064558 = product of:
      0.08129116 = sum of:
        0.08129116 = weight(_text_:century in 4154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08129116 = score(doc=4154,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20775084 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0085325 = idf(docFreq=802, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041479383 = queryNorm
            0.39129162 = fieldWeight in 4154, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.0085325 = idf(docFreq=802, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4154)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The identification and contextual definition of concepts is the core of knowledge organization. The full expression of comprehension is accomplished through the use of an extension device called the facet. A facet is a category of dimensional characteristics that cross the hierarchical array of concepts to provide extension, or breadth, to the contexts in which they are discovered or expressed in knowledge organization systems. The use of the facet in knowledge organization has a rich history arising in the mid-nineteenth century. As it has matured through more than a century of application, the notion of the facet in knowledge organization has taken on a variety of meanings, from that of simple categories used in web search engines to the more sophisticated idea of intersecting dimensions of knowledge. This book describes the state of the art of the understanding of facets in knowledge organization today.

0.02088788 = product of:
  0.06266364 = sum of:
    0.039671022 = weight(_text_:history in 571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039671022 = score(doc=571,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19296135 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.20559052 = fieldWeight in 571, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=571)
    0.022992613 = product of:
      0.045985226 = sum of:
        0.045985226 = weight(_text_:century in 571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045985226 = score(doc=571,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20775084 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0085325 = idf(docFreq=802, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041479383 = queryNorm
            0.22134796 = fieldWeight in 571, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.0085325 = idf(docFreq=802, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=571)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

A native of Germany and a former teacher of languages and music, Julius Otto Kaiser (1868-1927) came to the Philadelphia Commercial Museum to be its librarian in 1896. Faced with the problem of making "information" accessible, he developed a method of indexing he called systematic indexing. The first draft of his scheme, published in 1896-97, was an important landmark in the history of subject analysis. R. K. Olding credits Kaiser with making the greatest single advance in indexing theory since Charles A. Cutter and John Metcalfe eulogizes him by observing that "in sheer capacity for really scientific and logical thinking, Kaiser's was probably the best mind that has ever applied itself to subject indexing." Kaiser was an admirer of "system." By systematic indexing he meant indicating information not with natural language expressions as, for instance, Cutter had advocated, but with artificial expressions constructed according to formulas. Kaiser grudged natural language its approximateness, its vagaries, and its ambiguities. The formulas he introduced were to provide a "machinery for regularising or standardising language" (paragraph 67). Kaiser recognized three categories or "facets" of index terms: (1) terms of concretes, representing things, real or imaginary (e.g., money, machines); (2) terms of processes, representing either conditions attaching to things or their actions (e.g., trade, manufacture); and (3) terms of localities, representing, for the most part, countries (e.g., France, South Africa). Expressions in Kaiser's index language were called statements. Statements consisted of sequences of terms, the syntax of which was prescribed by formula. These formulas specified sequences of terms by reference to category types. Only three citation orders were permitted: a term in the concrete category followed by one in the process category (e.g., Wool-Scouring); (2) a country term followed by a process term (e.g., Brazil - Education); and (3) a concrete term followed by a country term, followed by a process term (e.g., Nitrate-Chile-Trade). Kaiser's system was a precursor of two of the most significant developments in twentieth-century approaches to subject access-the special purpose use of language for indexing, thus the concept of index language, which was to emerge as a generative idea at the time of the second Cranfield experiment (1966) and the use of facets to categorize subject indicators, which was to become the characterizing feature of analytico-synthetic indexing methods such as the Colon classification. In addition to its visionary quality, Kaiser's work is notable for its meticulousness and honesty, as can be seen, for instance, in his observations about the difficulties in facet definition.

0.013223674 = product of:
  0.079342045 = sum of:
    0.079342045 = weight(_text_:history in 2760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079342045 = score(doc=2760,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19296135 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.41118103 = fieldWeight in 2760, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2760)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The article highlights the efforts and plans of Sarada Ranganathan Endowment for Library Science for revival of CC. Presents a brief history of the Scheme and explains is features. Discusses areas needing revamping for continual revision and existence of CC. Also seeks feedback from LIS professionals on the revision of the Scheme.

0.011570716 = product of:
  0.069424294 = sum of:
    0.069424294 = weight(_text_:history in 3614) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.069424294 = score(doc=3614,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19296135 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.3597834 = fieldWeight in 3614, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3614)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Research history of the last 70 years highlights various systems for contents assessment and retrieval of scientific literature, such as universal classifications, thesauri, ontologies etc., which have followed developments of their own, notwithstanding a general trend towards interoperability, i.e. either to become instruments for cooperation or to widen their scope to encompass neighbouring fields within their framework. In the case of thesauri and ontologies, the endeavour to upgrade them into a universal system was bound to miscarry. This paper purports to indicate ways to gain from past experience and possibly rally material achievements while updating and promoting the ontologically-based faceted Information Coding Classification as a progressive universal system fit for meeting whatever requirements in the fields of information and science at large.

0.011570716 = product of:
  0.069424294 = sum of:
    0.069424294 = weight(_text_:history in 1164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.069424294 = score(doc=1164,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19296135 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.3597834 = fieldWeight in 1164, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1164)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Facets are widely encountered in information and knowledge organization, but there is much disparity in the use and understanding of concepts such as "facet," "facet analysis," and "faceted classification." The paper traces the history of these ideas and how they have been employed in different contexts. What may be termed the classical school of faceted classification is given some prominence, through the ideas of Ranganathan and the Classification Research Group, but other interpretations are also explored. Attention is paid not only to the idea of what facet analysis is, and what purpose it serves, but also the language utilized to describe and explain it.

0.008264797 = product of:
  0.049588777 = sum of:
    0.049588777 = weight(_text_:history in 3183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049588777 = score(doc=3183,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19296135 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.25698814 = fieldWeight in 3183, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3183)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Content

Contents: 1. Introduction: Kinds of Division; 2. The Basics of Logical Division; 3. History; 4. Formalization; 5. The Rules; 6. The Status of the Rules; 7. The Process of Logical Division; 8. Conclusion

0.008129116 = product of:
  0.048774697 = sum of:
    0.048774697 = product of:
      0.097549394 = sum of:
        0.097549394 = weight(_text_:century in 5406) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.097549394 = score(doc=5406,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20775084 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0085325 = idf(docFreq=802, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041479383 = queryNorm
            0.46954992 = fieldWeight in 5406, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.0085325 = idf(docFreq=802, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5406)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

S R Ranganathan's ideas have influenced library classification since the inception of his Colon Classification in 1933. His address at Elsinore, "Library Classification Through a Century", was his grand vision of the century of progress in classification from 1876 to 1975, and looked to the future of faceted classification as the means to provide a cohesive system to organize the world's information. Fifty years later, the internet and its achievements, social ecology, and consequences present a far more complicated picture, with the library as he knew it as a very small part and the problems that he confronted now greatly exacerbated. The systematic nature of Ranganathan's canons, principles, postulates, and devices suggest that modern semantic algorithms could guide automatic subject tagging. The vision presented here is one of internet-wide faceted classification and retrieval, implemented as open, distributed facets providing unified faceted searching across all web sites.

0.0076642046 = product of:
  0.045985226 = sum of:
    0.045985226 = product of:
      0.09197045 = sum of:
        0.09197045 = weight(_text_:century in 3755) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09197045 = score(doc=3755,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20775084 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0085325 = idf(docFreq=802, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041479383 = queryNorm
            0.44269592 = fieldWeight in 3755, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.0085325 = idf(docFreq=802, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3755)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This entry looks at the origins of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification 2nd edition and the theory on which it is built. The reasons for the decision to revise the classification are examined, as are the influences on classification theory of the mid-twentieth century. The process of revision and construction of schedules using facet analysis is described. The use of BC2 is considered along with some recent development work on thesaural and digital formats.

0.0067742635 = product of:
  0.04064558 = sum of:
    0.04064558 = product of:
      0.08129116 = sum of:
        0.08129116 = weight(_text_:century in 2794) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08129116 = score(doc=2794,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20775084 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0085325 = idf(docFreq=802, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041479383 = queryNorm
            0.39129162 = fieldWeight in 2794, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.0085325 = idf(docFreq=802, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2794)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This paper reviews Ranganathan's description of subject from mathematical angle. Ranganathan was highly influenced by Nineteenth Century mathematician George Cantor and he used the concept of infinity in developing an axiomatic interpretation of subject. Majority of library scientists interpreted the concept of subject merely as a term or descriptor or heading to include the same in cataloguing and subject indexing. Some library scientists interpreted subject on the basis of document, i.e. from the angle of the concept of aboutness or epistemological potential of the document etc. Some people explained subject from the viewpoint of social, cultural or socio-cultural process. Attempts were made to describe subject from epistemological viewpoint. But S R Ranganathan was the first to develop an axiomatic concept of subject on its own. He built up an independent idea of subject that is ubiquitously pervasive with human cognition process. To develop the basic foundation of subject, he used the mathematical concepts of infinity and infinitesimal and construed the set of subjects or universe of subjects as continuous infinite universe. The subject may also exist in extremely micro-form, which was termed as spot subject and analogized with point, which is dimensionless having only an existence. The influence of Twentieth Century physicist George Gamow on Ranganathan's thought has also been discussed.

0.006706179 = product of:
  0.040237073 = sum of:
    0.040237073 = product of:
      0.080474146 = sum of:
        0.080474146 = weight(_text_:century in 5899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.080474146 = score(doc=5899,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20775084 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0085325 = idf(docFreq=802, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041479383 = queryNorm
            0.38735893 = fieldWeight in 5899, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.0085325 = idf(docFreq=802, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5899)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

S.R. Ranganathan is credited with the introduction of the term "facet" in the field of knowledge organization towards the middle of the twentieth century. Facets have traditionally been used to organize document collections and to express complex subjects. In the digital world, they act as filters to facilitate navigation and improve retrieval. But the popularity of the term does not mean that a definitive characterization of the concept has been established. Indeed, several conceptualizations of the facet co-exist. This article provides an overview of formal and informal definitions found in the literature of knowledge organization, followed by a discussion of four common conceptualizations of the facet: process vs product, nature vs function, object vs subject and organization vs navigation.

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 4835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05748153 = score(doc=4835,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20775084 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0085325 = idf(docFreq=802, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041479383 = queryNorm
            0.27668494 = fieldWeight in 4835, 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=4835)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In the early years of the 20th century, Julius Otto Kaiser (1868-1927), a special librarian and indexer of technical literature, developed a method of knowledge organization (KO) known as systematic indexing. Certain elements of the method-its stipulation that all indexing terms be divided into fundamental categories "concretes", "countries", and "processes", which are then to be synthesized into indexing "statements" formulated according to strict rules of citation order-have long been recognized as precursors to key principles of the theory of faceted classification. However, other, less well-known elements of the method may prove no less interesting to practitioners of KO. In particular, two aspects of systematic indexing seem to prefigure current trends in KO: (1) a perspectivist outlook that rejects universal classifications in favor of information organization systems customized to reflect local needs and (2) the incorporation of index terms extracted from source documents into a polyhierarchical taxonomical structure. Kaiser's perspectivism anticipates postmodern theories of KO, while his principled use of polyhierarchy to organize terms derived from the language of source documents provides a potentially fruitful model that can inform current discussions about harvesting natural-language terms, such as tags, and incorporating them into a flexibly structured controlled vocabulary.

0.0046832366 = product of:
  0.02809942 = sum of:
    0.02809942 = product of:
      0.05619884 = sum of:
        0.05619884 = weight(_text_:22 in 127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05619884 = score(doc=127,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14525373 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041479383 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 127, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=127)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Footnote

Zugleich Dissertation Univ. Düsseldorf. - Rez. in: ZfBB. 22(1975) S.53-57 (H.-A. Koch)

0.0041323984 = product of:
  0.024794389 = sum of:
    0.024794389 = weight(_text_:history in 3262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024794389 = score(doc=3262,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19296135 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041479383 = queryNorm
        0.12849407 = fieldWeight in 3262, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3262)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Footnote

Two of the papers revisit the interaction of facets with the theory of integrative levels, which posits that the organization of the natural world reflects increasingly interdependent complexity. This approach was tested as a basis for the creation of faceted classifications in the 1960s. These contemporary treatments of integrative levels are not discipline-driven as were the early approaches, but instead are ontological and phenomenological in focus. Dahlberg (p. 161-172) outlines the creation of the ICC (Information Coding System) and the application of the Systematifier in the generation of facets and the creation of a fully faceted classification. Gnoli (p. 177-192) proposes the use of fundamental categories as a way to redefine facets and fundamental categories in "more universal and level-independent ways" (p. 192). Given that Axiomathes has a stated focus on "contemporary issues in cognition and ontology" and the following thesis: "that real advances in contemporary science may depend upon a consideration of the origins and intellectual history of ideas at the forefront of current research," this venue seems well suited for the implementation of the stated agenda, to illustrate complementary approaches and to stimulate research. As situated, this special issue may well serve as a bridge to a more interdisciplinary dialogue about facet analysis than has previously been the case."

0.0037465894 = product of:
  0.022479536 = sum of:
    0.022479536 = product of:
      0.044959072 = sum of:
        0.044959072 = weight(_text_:22 in 826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044959072 = score(doc=826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14525373 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041479383 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 826, 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=826)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

2. 6.2013 18:33:22

0.0032782655 = product of:
  0.019669592 = sum of:
    0.019669592 = product of:
      0.039339185 = sum of:
        0.039339185 = weight(_text_:22 in 4227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039339185 = score(doc=4227,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14525373 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041479383 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4227, 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=4227)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Information processing and management. 46(2010) no.1, S.22-43

0.0032782655 = product of:
  0.019669592 = sum of:
    0.019669592 = product of:
      0.039339185 = sum of:
        0.039339185 = weight(_text_:22 in 632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039339185 = score(doc=632,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14525373 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041479383 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 632, 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=632)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 2.2013 11:31:25