Search (78 results, page 1 of 4)

0.051880024 = product of:
  0.07782003 = sum of:
    0.06396067 = weight(_text_:development in 7241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06396067 = score(doc=7241,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.39946604 = fieldWeight in 7241, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7241)
    0.0138593605 = product of:
      0.04157808 = sum of:
        0.04157808 = weight(_text_:22 in 7241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04157808 = score(doc=7241,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1535205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04384008 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 7241, 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=7241)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Discusses the reasons for the decision, taken at Florida International University Library to develop an in house classification system for their local documents collections. Reviews the structures of existing classification systems, noting their strengths and weaknesses in relation to the development of an in house system and describes the 5 components of the new system; geography, subject categories, extensions for population group and/or function, extensions for type of publication, and title/series designator

Footnote

Paper presented at conference on 'Local documents, a new classification scheme' at the Research Caucus of the Florida Library Association Annual Conference, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 22 Apr 95

0.039474797 = product of:
  0.059212193 = sum of:
    0.04522703 = weight(_text_:development in 4940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04522703 = score(doc=4940,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.28246516 = fieldWeight in 4940, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4940)
    0.013985164 = product of:
      0.041955493 = sum of:
        0.041955493 = weight(_text_:29 in 4940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041955493 = score(doc=4940,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1542157 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04384008 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 4940, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4940)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

A detailed examination of the UDC's history, function and future prospects. Among topics discussed are: the early pioneering work of P. Otlet and H. LaFontaine; the development of Colon Classification; the 'UDC versus switching language' debate in the 1970s; the FID standard reference code project; and the recent scheme by Williamson and McIlwaine to restructure UDC completely, converting it into a Colon Classification and also creating a thesaurus drawn from the same classification. Comments that UDC, far from being a 'prehistoric monster', is becoming a sort of test laboratory for developing new and interesting documentation structures

Date

29. 1.1996 17:18:10

0.03383554 = product of:
  0.05075331 = sum of:
    0.038766023 = weight(_text_:development in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038766023 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.242113 = fieldWeight in 164, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=164)
    0.011987286 = product of:
      0.035961855 = sum of:
        0.035961855 = weight(_text_:29 in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035961855 = score(doc=164,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1542157 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04384008 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 164, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=164)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

One general principle in the construction of classification schemes is that of grouping phenomena to be classified according to their shared origin in evolution or history (phylogenesis). In general schemes, this idea has been applied by several classificationists in identifying a series of integrative levels, each originated from the previous ones, and using them as the main classes. In special schemes, common origin is a key principle in many domains: examples are given from the classification of climates, of organisms, and of musical instruments. Experience from these domains, however, suggests that using common origin alone, as done in cladistic taxonomy, can produce weird results, like having birds as a subclass of reptiles; while the most satisfying classifications use a well balanced mix of common origin and similarity. It is discussed how this could be applied to the development of a general classification of phenomena in an emergentist perspective, and how the resulting classification tree could be structured. Charles Bennett's notion of logical depth appears to be a promising conceptual tool for this purpose.

Date

11. 3.2007 14:19:29

0.03376365 = product of:
  0.050645474 = sum of:
    0.038766023 = weight(_text_:development in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038766023 = score(doc=2945,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.242113 = fieldWeight in 2945, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2945)
    0.011879452 = product of:
      0.035638355 = sum of:
        0.035638355 = weight(_text_:22 in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035638355 = score(doc=2945,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1535205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04384008 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2945, 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=2945)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Argues that Beghtol's (2003) use of the terms "naive classification" and "professional classification" is valid because they are nominal definitions and that the distinction between these two types of classification points up the need for researchers in knowledge organization to broaden their scope beyond traditional classification systems intended for information retrieval. Argues that work by Beghtol (2003), Kwasnik (1999) and Bailey (1994) offer direction for the development of a classification of classifications based on the pragmatic dimensions of extant classification systems. Bezugnahme auf: Beghtol, C.: Naïve classification systems and the global information society. In: Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine. Würzburg: Ergon Verlag 2004. S.19-22. (Advances in knowledge organization; vol.9)

0.030457465 = product of:
  0.09137239 = sum of:
    0.09137239 = weight(_text_:development in 762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09137239 = score(doc=762,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.5706658 = fieldWeight in 762, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=762)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Discusses the development of classification schemes and their ability to adapt to and accomodate changes in the information world in order to survive. Examines the revision plans for the major classification schemes and the future use of classification search facilities for OPACs

0.025844015 = product of:
  0.077532046 = sum of:
    0.077532046 = weight(_text_:development in 1771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.077532046 = score(doc=1771,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.484226 = fieldWeight in 1771, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1771)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this article is to evaluate the development and use of the gene ontology (GO), a scientific vocabulary widely used in molecular biology databases, with particular reference to the relation between the theoretical basis of the GO, and the pragmatics of its application. Design/methodology/approach - The study uses a combination of bibliometric analysis, content analysis and discourse analysis. These analyses focus on details of the ways in which the terms of the ontology are amended and deleted, and in which they are applied by users. Findings - Although the GO is explicitly based on an objective realist epistemology, a considerable extent of subjectivity and social factors are evident in its development and use. It is concluded that bio-ontologies could beneficially be extended to be pluralist, while remaining objective, taking a view of concepts closer to that of more traditional controlled vocabularies. Originality/value - This is one of very few studies which evaluate the development of a formal ontology in relation to its conceptual foundations, and the first to consider the GO in this way.

0.022509102 = product of:
  0.03376365 = sum of:
    0.025844015 = weight(_text_:development in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025844015 = score(doc=2346,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.16140866 = fieldWeight in 2346, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2346)
    0.007919635 = product of:
      0.023758903 = sum of:
        0.023758903 = weight(_text_:22 in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023758903 = score(doc=2346,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1535205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04384008 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2346, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2346)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Purpose - Potential and benefits of classification schemes and thesauri in building organizational taxonomies cannot be fully utilized by organizations. Empirical data of building an organizational taxonomy by the top-down approach of using classification schemes and thesauri appear to be lacking. The paper seeks to make a contribution in this regard. Design/methodology/approach - A case study of building an organizational taxonomy was conducted in the information studies domain for the Division of Information Studies at Nanyang Technology University, Singapore. The taxonomy was built by using the Dewey Decimal Classification, the Information Science Taxonomy, two information systems taxonomies, and three thesauri (ASIS&T, LISA, and ERIC). Findings - Classification schemes and thesauri were found to be helpful in creating the structure and categories related to the subject facet of the taxonomy, but organizational community sources had to be consulted and several methods had to be employed. The organizational activities and stakeholders' needs had to be identified to determine the objectives, facets, and the subject coverage of the taxonomy. Main categories were determined by identifying the stakeholders' interests and consulting organizational community sources and domain taxonomies. Category terms were selected from terminologies of classification schemes, domain taxonomies, and thesauri against the stakeholders' interests. Hierarchical structures of the main categories were constructed in line with the stakeholders' perspectives and the navigational role taking advantage of structures/term relationships from classification schemes and thesauri. Categories were determined in line with the concepts and the hierarchical levels. Format of categories were uniformed according to a commonly used standard. The consistency principle was employed to make the taxonomy structure and categories neater. Validation of the draft taxonomy through consultations with the stakeholders further refined the taxonomy. Originality/value - No similar study could be traced in the literature. The steps and methods used in the taxonomy development, and the information studies taxonomy itself, will be helpful for library and information schools and other similar organizations in their effort to develop taxonomies for organizing content and aiding navigation on organizational sites.

Date

7.11.2008 15:22:04

0.021214878 = product of:
  0.06364463 = sum of:
    0.06364463 = product of:
      0.09546694 = sum of:
        0.04794914 = weight(_text_:29 in 1171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04794914 = score(doc=1171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1542157 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04384008 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 1171, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1171)
        0.047517806 = weight(_text_:22 in 1171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047517806 = score(doc=1171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1535205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04384008 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1171, 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=1171)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

29. 1.1996 16:50:24

Source

Bulletin d'informations de l'Association des Bibliothecaires Francais. 1997, no.175, S.22-23

0.018651312 = product of:
  0.055953935 = sum of:
    0.055953935 = weight(_text_:development in 2720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055953935 = score(doc=2720,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.34946 = fieldWeight in 2720, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2720)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The facet-analytic paradigm is probably the most distinct approach to knowledge organization within Library and Information Science, and in many ways it has dominated what has be termed "modern classification theory". It was mainly developed by S.R. Ranganathan and the British Classification Research Group, but it is mostly based on principles of logical division developed more than two millennia ago. Colon Classification (CC) and Bliss 2 (BC2) are among the most important systems developed on this theoretical basis, but it has also influenced the development of other systems, such as the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) and is also applied in many websites. It still has a strong position in the field and it is the most explicit and "pure" theoretical approach to knowledge organization (KO) (but it is not by implication necessarily also the most important one). The strength of this approach is its logical principles and the way it provides structures in knowledge organization systems (KOS). The main weaknesses are (1) its lack of empirical basis and (2) its speculative ordering of knowledge without basis in the development or influence of theories and socio-historical studies. It seems to be based on the problematic assumption that relations between concepts are a priori and not established by the development of models, theories and laws.

0.018563017 = product of:
  0.055689048 = sum of:
    0.055689048 = product of:
      0.08353357 = sum of:
        0.041955493 = weight(_text_:29 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041955493 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1542157 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04384008 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
        0.04157808 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04157808 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1535205 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04384008 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3494, 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=3494)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Pages

S.22-36

Source

Theorie, Semantik und Organisation von Wissen: Proceedings der 13. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und dem 13. Internationalen Symposium der Informationswissenschaft der Higher Education Association for Information Science (HI) Potsdam (19.-20.03.2013): 'Theory, Information and Organization of Knowledge' / Proceedings der 14. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und Natural Language & Information Systems (NLDB) Passau (16.06.2015): 'Lexical Resources for Knowledge Organization' / Proceedings des Workshops der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) auf der SEMANTICS Leipzig (1.09.2014): 'Knowledge Organization and Semantic Web' / Proceedings des Workshops der Polnischen und Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) Cottbus (29.-30.09.2011): 'Economics of Knowledge Production and Organization'. Hrsg. von W. Babik, H.P. Ohly u. K. Weber

0.018274479 = product of:
  0.054823436 = sum of:
    0.054823436 = weight(_text_:development in 2669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054823436 = score(doc=2669,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.34239948 = fieldWeight in 2669, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2669)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The German standard on the construction and further development of classification systems is introduced with its background. The contents of its 8 chapters is described. A critical appraisal considers (1) the fact that the standard does not openly deal with the optimal form of CS, viz. faceted CS, but treats them as one possibility among others, although the authors seem to have had this kind in mind when recommending the section on steps of CS development and other sections of the standard; (2) that the standard does not give any recommendation on the computerization of the necessary activities in establishing CS; and (3) that a convergence of CS and thesauri in the form of faceted CS and faceted thesauri has not been taken into consideration. - Concludingly some doubts are raised whether a standard would be the best medium to provide recommendations or guidelines for the construction of such systems. More adequate ways for this should be explored

0.017229345 = product of:
  0.05168803 = sum of:
    0.05168803 = weight(_text_:development in 1816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05168803 = score(doc=1816,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.32281733 = fieldWeight in 1816, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1816)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The resemblances between the categories of Aristotle and those of Ranganathan are shown. These categories are examined in the light of criticism made by Bertrand Russell and are shown to have no validity. Similar comparisons are made between the relations of Huma and Farradane. Farradane's work is a return to Hume, who is generally acknowledged as one of the founders of the British school of empirical philosophy which continues to Russell and beyond. In Russell's work lies the most promising line of development for information classification and indexing

0.017229345 = product of:
  0.05168803 = sum of:
    0.05168803 = weight(_text_:development in 5559) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05168803 = score(doc=5559,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.32281733 = fieldWeight in 5559, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5559)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Discusses classification as a central resource of human informational activity and as a central aspect of research for many sciences. Argues that thinking about the background of classification can help improve, or at least clarify, the practical tasks of documentary workers and librarians. Discusses the relationship and gaps between cognitive science and information science, and considers the contributions of epistemology and cognitive psychology; in particular, focuses on the role of the latter in the development of an integrative theory of classification

0.017229345 = product of:
  0.05168803 = sum of:
    0.05168803 = weight(_text_:development in 3074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05168803 = score(doc=3074,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.32281733 = fieldWeight in 3074, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3074)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This philosophical essay explores the epistemological foundations of knowledge organization and discusses implications for classification research. The study defines the concept of "knowledge," distinguishes between subjective knowledge (i.e., knowledge as a thought in the individual's mind) and objective knowledge (i.e., knowledge as an independent object), establishes the necessity of knowledge organization in the construction of knowledge and its key role in the creation, learning, and dissemination of knowledge, and concludes with implications for the development of classification schemes and knowledge maps.

0.017229345 = product of:
  0.05168803 = sum of:
    0.05168803 = weight(_text_:development in 3253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05168803 = score(doc=3253,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.32281733 = fieldWeight in 3253, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3253)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Considering fields as diverse as the history of science, Internet studies, border studies, and coalition politics, the article gives an historical overview of how the knowledge around queer phenomena has been structured, tabulated, and spacialized: the hazards, coercive and productive qualities, as well as queer's paradoxical relationship as both resistant to and reliant on categories, classification, and knowledge structures. In the process, the article also considers the development of Western hierarchical knowledge structures in relation to societal power dynamics, proximity, and space.

0.017229345 = product of:
  0.05168803 = sum of:
    0.05168803 = weight(_text_:development in 3754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05168803 = score(doc=3754,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.32281733 = fieldWeight in 3754, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3754)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The brothers Foskett, Anthony and Douglas, have both made major contributions to the theory and practice of subject analysis and description. Here, Douglas Foskett explains facet analysis, a vital technique in the development of both classification schemes and thesauri. Foskett himself created faceted classification schemes for specific disciplines, drawing from the philosophy of the great Indian classificationist, S.R. Ranganathan.

0.0152287325 = product of:
  0.045686197 = sum of:
    0.045686197 = weight(_text_:development in 5313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045686197 = score(doc=5313,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.2853329 = fieldWeight in 5313, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5313)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Astronomy classification is often overlooked in classification discourse. Its rarity and obscurity, especially within UK librarianship, suggests it is an underdeveloped strand of classification research and is possibly undervalued in modern librarianship. The purpose of this research is to investigate the suitability and practicalities of the discipline of astronomy adopting a subject-specific faceted classification scheme and to provide a provi-sional outline of a special faceted astronomy classification scheme. The research demonstrates that the application of universal schemes for astronomy classification had left the interdisciplinary subject ill catered for and outdated, making accurate classification difficult for specialist astronomy collections. A faceted approach to classification development is supported by two qualitative literature-based research methods: historical research into astronomy classification and an analytico-synthetic classification case study. The subsequent classification development is influenced through a pragmatic and scholarly-scientific approach and constructed by means of instruction from faceted classification guides by Vickery (1960) and Batley (2005), and faceted classification principles from Ranaganathan (1937). This research fills a gap within classification discourse on specialist interdisciplinary subjects, specifically within astronomy and demonstrates the best means for their classification. It provides a means of assessing further the value of faceted classification within astronomy librarianship.

0.015075676 = product of:
  0.04522703 = sum of:
    0.04522703 = weight(_text_:development in 3752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04522703 = score(doc=3752,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.28246516 = fieldWeight in 3752, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3752)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

Enthält folgende Kapitel: (1) Definition, need and purpose of classification, (2) History of library classification, (3) Terminology of classification, (4) Development of a theory of classification, (5) Work of classification in three planes and their interrelationship, (6) Work of classification in idea plane, (7) Verbal plane, (8) Notation, definition, need functions, (9) Multidimensional nature of subjects, (10) Growing universe of subjects: problems and solutions, (11) Postulational approach to classification, (12) Formation of sharpening of isolates, (13) Species of classification schemes, (14) DDC, UDC and CC, (15) Designing the depth schedules of classification, (16) Recent trends in classification

0.015075676 = product of:
  0.04522703 = sum of:
    0.04522703 = weight(_text_:development in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04522703 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.28246516 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Arguing that an established technical terminology is crucial to the development of a discipline, and that classification terminology is neither well settled nor widely used by its exponents, this paper provides an explanation of some of the concepts generally accepted by classification theorists. In particular, the elaborate terminology generated by S.R. Ranganathan is examined. Definitions are provided for numerous concepts, including "classification"; "characteristics" and "attributes"; the genus-species relationship; the types of classes (canonical, systems, special, and environmental main classes); the kinds of subject (basic, compound, complex); as well as concepts such as facets, isolates, arrays, and chains. Comparisons between different classification systems, specifically the Dewey Decimal Classification, Colon Classification, and Library of Congress Classification, are also made

0.015075676 = product of:
  0.04522703 = sum of:
    0.04522703 = weight(_text_:development in 5659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04522703 = score(doc=5659,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16011542 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04384008 = queryNorm
        0.28246516 = fieldWeight in 5659, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.652261 = idf(docFreq=3116, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5659)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This proposed new classification scheme is based on two main elements: hierarchism and binary theory. Hence, it is called Universal Binary Classification (UBC). Some advantages of this classification are highlighted including are subject heading development, construction of a thesaurus and all terms with meaningful features arranged in tabular form that can help researchers, through a semantic process, to find what they need. This classification scheme is fully consistent with the classification of knowledge. The classification of knowledge is also based on hierarchism and binary principle. Finally, a survey on randomly selected books in McLennan Library of McGill University is presented to compare the codes of this new classification with the currently employed Library of Congress Classification (LCC) numbers in the discipline of Library and Information Sciences.