Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.02513961 = product of:
  0.05027922 = sum of:
    0.05027922 = product of:
      0.10055844 = sum of:
        0.10055844 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4988) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10055844 = score(doc=4988,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.56900144 = fieldWeight in 4988, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4988)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Scientific classification is an important topic in contemporary knowledge organization discourse, yet the nature of the relationships between scientific and bibliographic classifications has not been fully studied. This article considers the connections between scientific and bibliographic classifications for music, taking general discourse about scientific classification and domain analysis as its starting point. Three relationship characteristics are posited: similarity, causation, and time. In discussions about similarity, "accords" and "discords" are analyzed. Further, the idea of a scale of accord is introduced, and issues with assuming a univocal scientific or bibliographic classification of music are discussed. Causation and the idea of influence between scientific and bibliographic classifications for music are unpicked. The connections between accordance and influence are explored, and the concept of differing purposes for different classification approaches is analyzed. A temporal dimension is considered, and the dynamic nature of connections between music scientific and bibliographic classifications is established. The idea of bifurcation is introduced-a change of accordance over time-which is prominent for musical instrument classification. The concluding model visualizes similarity, causation and temporal aspects as three dimensions, showing how scientific and bibliographic classifications for music are connected through a set of interconnected and complex relationships.

0.021526773 = product of:
  0.043053545 = sum of:
    0.043053545 = product of:
      0.08610709 = sum of:
        0.08610709 = weight(_text_:22 in 4162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08610709 = score(doc=4162,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 4162, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4162)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Indexer. 22(2001) no.4, S.191-194

0.016125225 = product of:
  0.03225045 = sum of:
    0.03225045 = product of:
      0.0645009 = sum of:
        0.0645009 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0645009 = score(doc=4886,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 4886, 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=4886)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper demonstrates how knowledge organisation theories can be used to understand the arrangement of concert programmes. Key classification theories from the management of libraries, archives and ephemera collections are used as a framework in this study: characteristics of division (faceted classification theory), provenance (archival arrangement) and arrangement by format (ephemera arrangement). Each theory is used to analyse the arrangement of specific concert programme collections held at the Centre for Performance History, Royal College of Music, London. Two classification models are created from the analysis. Model 1 reveals how concert programme arrangement could be viewed as a theoretical bridge between bibliographic, archival and ephemera arrangement theories. This model proposes a unified classification based on bibliographic characteristics of division; the characteristics of division structure is populated with characteristics taken from bibliographical classification, archival arrangement and ephemera organisation. Model 2 proposes an alternative way of considering the unified classification model: a triumvirate of event, programme and individual copy. Complex relationships between elements of the triumvirate are explored, as well as is an analysis of how various characteristics fit into the model.

0.012301013 = product of:
  0.024602026 = sum of:
    0.024602026 = product of:
      0.04920405 = sum of:
        0.04920405 = weight(_text_:22 in 3607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04920405 = score(doc=3607,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3607, 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=3607)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:08:06

0.010763386 = product of:
  0.021526773 = sum of:
    0.021526773 = product of:
      0.043053545 = sum of:
        0.043053545 = weight(_text_:22 in 1423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043053545 = score(doc=1423,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15896842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1423, 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=1423)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.010750149 = product of:
  0.021500299 = sum of:
    0.021500299 = product of:
      0.043000598 = sum of:
        0.043000598 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2804) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043000598 = score(doc=2804,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.24331525 = fieldWeight in 2804, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2804)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The ACL Anthology is a digital archive of conference and journal papers in natural language processing and computational linguistics. Its primary purpose is to serve as a reference repository of research results, but we believe that it can also be an object of study and a platform for research in its own right. We describe an enriched and standardized reference corpus derived from the ACL Anthology that can be used for research in scholarly document processing. This corpus, which we call the ACL Anthology Reference Corpus (ACL ARC), brings together the recent activities of a number of research groups around the world. Our goal is to make the corpus widely available, and to encourage other researchers to use it as a standard testbed for experiments in both bibliographic and bibliometric research.

0.00950188 = product of:
  0.01900376 = sum of:
    0.01900376 = product of:
      0.03800752 = sum of:
        0.03800752 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5755) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03800752 = score(doc=5755,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 5755, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5755)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper discusses the Hornbostel-Sachs Classification of Musical Instruments. This classification system was originally designed for musical instruments and books about instruments, and was first published in German in 1914. Hornbostel-Sachs has dominated organological discourse and practice since its creation, and this article analyses the scheme's context, background, versions and impact. The position of Hornbostel-Sachs in the history and development of instrument classification is explored. This is followed by a detailed analysis of the mechanics of the scheme, including its decimal notation, the influential broad categories of the scheme, its warrant and its typographical layout. The version history of the scheme is outlined and the relationships between versions is visualised, including its translations, the introduction of the electrophones category and the Musical Instruments Museums Online (MIMO) version designed for a digital environment. The reception of Hornbostel-Sachs is analysed, and its usage, criticism and impact are all considered. As well as dominating organological research and practice for over a century, it is shown that Hornbostel-Sachs also had a significant influence on the bibliographic classification of music.

0.00950188 = product of:
  0.01900376 = sum of:
    0.01900376 = product of:
      0.03800752 = sum of:
        0.03800752 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 212) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03800752 = score(doc=212,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17672792 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045395818 = queryNorm
            0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 212, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=212)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The classification of Western art music is a complex area of knowledge organization, yet the reasons for those complexities have not been fully studied. This research dissects the concept of orthogonality, in particular regard to music classification. Orthogonality (antonym: dependency) means that one facet acts independently from another facet. Although orthogonality is an assumed quality of facets, it has attracted relatively little attention in knowledge organization discourse. This research utilizes bibliographic classification schemes, musicological writings, and musical works to analyze orthogonality in music classification. The relationships between the medium, form/genre, and function facets are unpicked and a strong dependency is found between these facets. Whether this orthogonality exists as a construct of faceted classification or stems from the domain knowledge is explored. Furthermore, the analysis initiates new thinking about the general concept of orthogonality. The idea of a spectrum of dependency is proposed. In addition, novel, orthogonality-derived phenomena are discussed-"dynamic facets" and "meta-dependency"-where the boundary between what is and is not a facet is blurred. The concluding model visualizes the chain of dependencies between music facets, ultimately showing how the lack of orthogonality plays a key role in the complexity and issues found in music classification.