Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

0.030406015 = product of:
  0.06081203 = sum of:
    0.06081203 = product of:
      0.12162406 = sum of:
        0.12162406 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12162406 = score(doc=1346,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.68819946 = fieldWeight in 1346, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1346)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.023040833 = product of:
  0.046081666 = sum of:
    0.046081666 = product of:
      0.09216333 = sum of:
        0.09216333 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09216333 = score(doc=666,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.52149844 = fieldWeight in 666, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=666)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The interdisciplinary field of information studies requires an eclectic and imaginative curriculum. Future information professionals need intellectual tools that will enable them to adapt to changed social and technological environments. In this situation, the study of classification, including both principles application for current bibliographic systems and principles of construction that could be used to develop new systems for bibliographic and non bibliographic materials, is one way to equip students with the balanced flexibility to adapt to changing needs. Knowledge of the organization of knowledge is basic to any kind of information work

0.019749286 = product of:
  0.03949857 = sum of:
    0.03949857 = product of:
      0.07899714 = sum of:
        0.07899714 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07899714 = score(doc=1138,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.44699866 = fieldWeight in 1138, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1138)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In a changing information environment, we need to reassess each element of bibliographic control, including classification theories and systems. Every classification system is a theoretical construct imposed an "reality." The classificatory relationships that are assumed to be valuable have generally received less attention than the topics included in the systems. Relationships are functions of both the syntactic and semantic axes of classification systems, and both explicit and implicit relationships are discussed. Examples are drawn from a number of different systems, both bibliographic and non-bibliographic, and the cultural warrant (i. e., the sociocultural context) of classification systems is examined. The part-whole relationship is discussed as an example of a universally valid concept that is treated as a component of the cultural warrant of a classification system.

0.016457738 = product of:
  0.032915477 = sum of:
    0.032915477 = product of:
      0.06583095 = sum of:
        0.06583095 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06583095 = score(doc=3487,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.3724989 = fieldWeight in 3487, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3487)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.016125225 = product of:
  0.03225045 = sum of:
    0.03225045 = product of:
      0.0645009 = sum of:
        0.0645009 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2028) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0645009 = score(doc=2028,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 2028, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2028)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.016125225 = product of:
  0.03225045 = sum of:
    0.03225045 = product of:
      0.0645009 = sum of:
        0.0645009 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0645009 = score(doc=869,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 869, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=869)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

James Duff Brown was an influential and energetic librarian in Great Britain in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. His Subject Classification has characteristics that were unusual and idiosyncratic during his own time, but his work deserves recognition as one of the precursors of modern bibliographic classification systems. This article discusses a number of theories and classification practices that Brown developed. In particular, it investigates his views on the order of main classes, on the phenomenon of "concrete" subjects, and on the need for synthesized notations. It traces these ideas briefly into the future through the work of S. R. Ranganathan, the Classification Research Group, and the second edition of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification system. It concludes that Brown's work warrants further study for the light it may shed on current classification theory and practice.

0.0152030075 = product of:
  0.030406015 = sum of:
    0.030406015 = product of:
      0.06081203 = sum of:
        0.06081203 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 91) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06081203 = score(doc=91,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 91, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=91)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Different types of subdivision may be used throughout the same classification system. This paper presents exploratory research into "wholes", "kinds" and "parts" as they relate to the theory and practice of bibliographic classification. Some problems of consistently identifying different kinds of subdivision and of the ambiguities of their relationships are discussed. Some implications of these issues for dynamism and stability in classification systems are addressed

0.0134376865 = product of:
  0.026875373 = sum of:
    0.026875373 = product of:
      0.053750746 = sum of:
        0.053750746 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053750746 = score(doc=1856,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.30414405 = fieldWeight in 1856, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1856)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.012301013 = product of:
  0.024602026 = sum of:
    0.024602026 = product of:
      0.04920405 = sum of:
        0.04920405 = weight(_text_:22 in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04920405 = score(doc=5830,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

5. 8.2006 13:22:08

0.011402255 = product of:
  0.02280451 = sum of:
    0.02280451 = product of:
      0.04560902 = sum of:
        0.04560902 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 7728) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04560902 = score(doc=7728,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.2580748 = fieldWeight in 7728, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7728)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article reports research that used descriptor subfields in MLA Bibliography online to quantify literary warrant in the domain of scholarly work about fiction (i.e., 'fiction studies'). The research used Hulme's concept of literary warrant and Kernan's description of the interactive processes of literature and literary scholarship to justify quantifying existing subject indexing in existing bibliographic records as a first step in the domain analysis of a field. It was found that certain of the MLA Bibliography onle's descriptor subfields and certain of the descriptor terms within those subfields occured more often than would occur by chance. The techniques used in the research might be extended to domain analysis of other fields. Use of the methodology might improve the ability to evaluate existing and to design future subject access systems

0.011402255 = product of:
  0.02280451 = sum of:
    0.02280451 = product of:
      0.04560902 = sum of:
        0.04560902 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04560902 = score(doc=2217,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.2580748 = fieldWeight in 2217, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2217)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Undiscovered public knowledge is a relatively unstudied phenomenon, and the few extended examples that have been published are intradisciplinary. This paper presents the concept of 'facet' as an example of interdisciplinary undiscovered public knowledge. 'Facets' were central to the bibliographic classification theory of S.R. Ranganathan in India and to the behavioural research of L. Guttman in Israel. The term had the same meaning in both fields, and the concept was developed and exploited at about the same time in both, but two separate, unconnected literatures grew up around the term and its associated concepts. This paper examines the origins and parallel uses of the concept and the term in both fields as a case study of interdisciplinary knowledge that could have been, but was apparantly not, doscovered any time between the aerly 1950s and the present using simple, readily available information retrieval techniques

0.011402255 = product of:
  0.02280451 = sum of:
    0.02280451 = product of:
      0.04560902 = sum of:
        0.04560902 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 44) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04560902 = score(doc=44,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.2580748 = fieldWeight in 44, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=44)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.0076881335 = product of:
  0.015376267 = sum of:
    0.015376267 = product of:
      0.030752534 = sum of:
        0.030752534 = weight(_text_:22 in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030752534 = score(doc=3483,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Pages

S.19-22