-
Bury, S.: Comparison of classification schedules for libraries (1980)
0.07
0.06634719 = product of:
0.17692584 = sum of:
0.05345567 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05345567 = score(doc=1603,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
0.03962768 = queryNorm
0.4106318 = fieldWeight in 1603, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1603)
0.06770035 = weight(_text_:case in 1603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06770035 = score(doc=1603,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
0.03962768 = queryNorm
0.3885918 = fieldWeight in 1603, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1603)
0.055769812 = weight(_text_:studies in 1603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.055769812 = score(doc=1603,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
0.03962768 = queryNorm
0.35269377 = fieldWeight in 1603, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1603)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
- Abstract
- Discusses the basic criteria for comparison of classification for libraries. Identifies a set of intellectual criteria, derived from the general theory of library classification as expounded by Dewey, Bliss, and Ranganathan. Compares LC, DC, and BC in relation criteria namely - order, university, hospitality, adaptability, terminology, relationship, synthesis, notational features - simplicity, brevity, expressiveness, specifity, synonymity, flexibility, correlation, case of use, revision and practical use. Highlights the value of comparative studies among classification schemes
-
Wang, Z.; Chaudhry, A.S.; Khoo, C.S.G.: Using classification schemes and thesauri to build an organizational taxonomy for organizing content and aiding navigation (2008)
0.03
0.034832347 = product of:
0.09288626 = sum of:
0.033850174 = weight(_text_:case in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033850174 = score(doc=2346,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
0.03962768 = queryNorm
0.1942959 = fieldWeight in 2346, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2346)
0.048298076 = weight(_text_:studies in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.048298076 = score(doc=2346,freq=6.0), product of:
0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
0.03962768 = queryNorm
0.30544177 = fieldWeight in 2346, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2346)
0.010738007 = product of:
0.021476014 = sum of:
0.021476014 = weight(_text_:22 in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.021476014 = score(doc=2346,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03962768 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
- 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
-
Dousa, T.M.; Ibekwe-SanJuan, F.: Epistemological and methodological eclecticism in the construction of knowledge organization systems (KOSs) : the case of analytico-synthetic KOSs (2014)
0.03
0.033971757 = product of:
0.090591356 = sum of:
0.042312715 = weight(_text_:case in 1417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042312715 = score(doc=1417,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
0.03962768 = queryNorm
0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 1417, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1417)
0.034856133 = weight(_text_:studies in 1417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034856133 = score(doc=1417,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
0.03962768 = queryNorm
0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 1417, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1417)
0.013422508 = product of:
0.026845016 = sum of:
0.026845016 = weight(_text_:22 in 1417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026845016 = score(doc=1417,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03962768 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
- Abstract
- In recent years, Hjørland has developed a typology of basic epistemological approaches to KO that identifies four basic positions - empiricism, rationalism, historicism/hermeneutics, and pragmatism -with which to characterize the epistemological bases and methodological orientation of KOSs. Although scholars of KO have noted that the design of a single KOS may incorporate epistemological-methodological features from more than one of these approaches, studies of concrete examples of epistemologico-methodological eclecticism have been rare. In this paper, we consider the phenomenon of epistemologico-methodological eclecticism in one theoretically significant family of KOSs - namely analytico-synthetic, or faceted, KOSs - by examining two cases - Julius Otto Kaiser's method of Systematic Indexing (SI) and Brian Vickery's method of facet analysis (FA) for document classification. We show that both of these systems combined classical features of rationalism with elements of empiricism and pragmatism and argue that such eclecticism is the norm, rather than the exception, for such KOSs in general.
- 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
-
Vickery, B.C.: Systematic subject indexing (1985)
0.03
0.030237943 = product of:
0.08063451 = sum of:
0.018899433 = weight(_text_:libraries in 3636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018899433 = score(doc=3636,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
0.03962768 = queryNorm
0.14518027 = fieldWeight in 3636, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3636)
0.033850174 = weight(_text_:case in 3636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033850174 = score(doc=3636,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
0.03962768 = queryNorm
0.1942959 = fieldWeight in 3636, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3636)
0.027884906 = weight(_text_:studies in 3636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027884906 = score(doc=3636,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
0.03962768 = queryNorm
0.17634688 = fieldWeight in 3636, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3636)
0.375 = coord(3/8)
- Abstract
- Brian C. Vickery, Director and Professor, School of Library, Archive and Information Studies, University College, London, is a prolific writer on classification and information retrieval. This paper was one of the earliest to present initial efforts by the Classification Research Group (q.v.). In it he clearly outlined the need for classification in subject indexing, which, at the time he wrote, was not a commonplace understanding. In fact, some indexing systems were made in the first place specifically to avoid general classification systems which were out of date in all fast-moving disciplines, especially in the "hard" sciences. Vickery picked up Julia Pettee's work (q.v.) an the concealed classification in subject headings (1947) and added to it, mainly adopting concepts from the work of S. R. Ranganathan (q.v.). He had already published a paper an notation in classification, pointing out connections between notation, words, and the concepts which they represent. He was especially concerned about the structure of notational symbols as such symbols represented relationships among subjects. Vickery also emphasized that index terms cover all aspects of a subject so that, in addition to having a basis in classification, the ideal index system should also have standardized nomenclature, as weIl as show evidence of a systematic classing of elementary terms. The necessary linkage between system and terms should be one of a number of methods, notably:
- adding a relational term ("operator") to identify and join terms; - indicating grammatical case with terms where this would help clarify relationships; and - analyzing elementary terms to reveal fundamental categories where needed. He further added that a standard order for showing relational factors was highly desirable. Eventually, some years later, he was able to suggest such an order. This was accepted by his peers in the Classification Research Group, and utilized by Derek Austin in PRECIS (q.v.). Vickery began where Farradane began - with perception (a sound base according to current cognitive psychology). From this came further recognition of properties, parts, constituents, organs, effects, reactions, operations (physical and mental), added to the original "identity," "difference," "class membership," and "species." By defining categories more carefully, Vickery arrived at six (in addition to space (geographic) and time): - personality, thing, substance (e.g., dog, bicycle, rose) - part (e.g., paw, wheel, leaf) - substance (e.g., copper, water, butter) - action (e.g., scattering) - property (e.g., length, velocity) - operation (e.g., analysis, measurement) Thus, as early as 1953, the foundations were already laid for research that ultimately produced very sophisticated systems, such as PRECIS.
- Imprint
- Littleton, CO : Libraries Unlimited
-
Broughton, V.: Faceted classification as a basis for knowledge organization in a digital environment : the Bliss Bibliographic Classification as a model for vocabulary management and the creation of multidimensional knowledge structures (2003)
0.02
0.023150655 = product of:
0.09260262 = sum of:
0.05077526 = weight(_text_:case in 2631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05077526 = score(doc=2631,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
0.03962768 = queryNorm
0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 2631, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2631)
0.04182736 = weight(_text_:studies in 2631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04182736 = score(doc=2631,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
0.03962768 = queryNorm
0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 2631, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2631)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Abstract
- The paper examines the way in which classification schemes can be applied to the organization of digital resources. The case is argued for the particular suitability of schemes based an faceted principles for the organization of complex digital objects. Details are given of a co-operative project between the School of Library Archive & Information Studies, University College London, and the United Kingdom Higher Education gateways Arts and Humanities Data Service and Humbul, in which a faceted knowledge structure is being developed for the indexing and display of digital materials within a new combined humanities portal.
-
Albrechtsen, H.; Pejtersen, A.M.: Cognitive work analysis and work centered design of classification schemes (2003)
0.02
0.020665925 = product of:
0.0826637 = sum of:
0.05077526 = weight(_text_:case in 3005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05077526 = score(doc=3005,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
0.03962768 = queryNorm
0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 3005, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3005)
0.031888437 = product of:
0.06377687 = sum of:
0.06377687 = weight(_text_:area in 3005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06377687 = score(doc=3005,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
0.03962768 = queryNorm
0.32663327 = fieldWeight in 3005, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3005)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Abstract
- Work centered design of classification schemes is an emerging area of research which poses particular challenges to domain analysis and scheme construction. A key challenge in work centered design of classification schemes is the evolving semantics of work. This article introduces a work centered approach to the design of classification schemes, based an the framework of cognitive work analysis. We launch collaborative task situations as a new unit of analysis for capturing evolving semantic structures in work domains. An example case from a cognitive work analysis of three national film research archives illustrates the application of the framework for identifying actors' needs for a classification scheme to support collaborative knowledge integration. It is concluded that a main contribution of the new approach is support for empirical analysis and overall design of classification schemes that can serve as material interfaces for actors' negotiations and integration of knowledge perspectives during collaborative work.
-
Choi, I.: Visualizations of cross-cultural bibliographic classification : comparative studies of the Korean Decimal Classification and the Dewey Decimal Classification (2017)
0.02
0.019292213 = product of:
0.07716885 = sum of:
0.042312715 = weight(_text_:case in 3869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042312715 = score(doc=3869,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
0.03962768 = queryNorm
0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 3869, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3869)
0.034856133 = weight(_text_:studies in 3869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034856133 = score(doc=3869,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
0.03962768 = queryNorm
0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 3869, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3869)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Abstract
- The changes in KO systems induced by sociocultural influences may include those in both classificatory principles and cultural features. The proposed study will examine the Korean Decimal Classification (KDC)'s adaptation of the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) by comparing the two systems. This case manifests the sociocultural influences on KOSs in a cross-cultural context. Therefore, the study aims at an in-depth investigation of sociocultural influences by situating a KOS in a cross-cultural environment and examining the dynamics between two classification systems designed to organize information resources in two distinct sociocultural contexts. As a preceding stage of the comparison, the analysis was conducted on the changes that result from the meeting of different sociocultural feature in a descriptive method. The analysis aims to identify variations between the two schemes in comparison of the knowledge structures of the two classifications, in terms of the quantity of class numbers that represent concepts and their relationships in each of the individual main classes. The most effective analytic strategy to show the patterns of the comparison was visualizations of similarities and differences between the two systems. Increasing or decreasing tendencies in the class through various editions were analyzed. Comparing the compositions of the main classes and distributions of concepts in the KDC and DDC discloses the differences in their knowledge structures empirically. This phase of quantitative analysis and visualizing techniques generates empirical evidence leading to interpretation.
-
Adler, M.A.: Disciplining knowledge at the Library of Congress (2012)
0.02
0.018229576 = product of:
0.0729183 = sum of:
0.023624292 = weight(_text_:libraries in 423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023624292 = score(doc=423,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
0.03962768 = queryNorm
0.18147534 = fieldWeight in 423, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=423)
0.049294014 = weight(_text_:studies in 423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049294014 = score(doc=423,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
0.03962768 = queryNorm
0.3117402 = fieldWeight in 423, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=423)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Abstract
- The Library of Congress is a federal institution that occupies a critical space where medical, social science, political, literary, and other discourses are collected, arranged, and disseminated to Congress and the public. LC plays a vital part in discipline creation and maintenance, as it actively reproduces specific discourses, while silencing others, such as those from the humanities, social sciences, and the general public. Alternatively, social tagging seems to disregard conventions of disciplinarity and allows much more diversity of representations. Tagging may provide important insight for organizing materials in research libraries, as choices between single disciplines are no longer necessary and voices from various fields and audiences can name resources using their own terms, whether they prefer medical/technical jargon or everyday words. As the academy moves more toward interdisciplinary/transdisciplinary studies and aims to find the intersections across political, social, scientific, and cultural phenomena, the implications and effects of library organization based on classes and subjects needs to be interrogated.
- Content
- Beitrag aus einem Themenheft zu den Proceedings of the 2nd Milwaukee Conference on Ethics in Information Organization, June 15-16, 2012, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Hope A. Olson, Conference Chair. Vgl.: http://www.ergon-verlag.de/isko_ko/downloads/ko_39_2012_5_i.pdf.
-
Hjoerland, B.: ¬The classification of psychology : a case study in the classification of a knowledge field (1998)
0.02
0.017667944 = product of:
0.070671774 = sum of:
0.033850174 = weight(_text_:case in 3783) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033850174 = score(doc=3783,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
0.03962768 = queryNorm
0.1942959 = fieldWeight in 3783, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3783)
0.0368216 = product of:
0.0736432 = sum of:
0.0736432 = weight(_text_:area in 3783) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0736432 = score(doc=3783,freq=6.0), product of:
0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
0.03962768 = queryNorm
0.37716365 = fieldWeight in 3783, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3783)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Abstract
- Different approaches to the classification of a knowledge field include empiristic, rationalistic, historistic, and pragmatic methods. This paper demonstrates how these different methids have been applied to the classification of psychology. An etymological apporach is insufficient to define the subject matter of psychology, because other terms can be used to describe the same domain. To define the subject matter of psychology from the point of view of its formal establishment as a science and academic discipline (in Leipzig, 1879) it is also insufficient because this was done in specific historical circumstances, which narrowed the subject matter to physiologically-related issues. When defining the subject area of a scientific field it is necessary to consider how different ontological and epistemological views have made their influences. A subject area and the approaches by which this subject area has been studied cannot be separated from each other without tracing their mutual historical interactions. The classification of a subject field is theory-laden and thus cannot be neutral or ahistorical. If classification research can claim to have a method that is more general than the study of concrete developments in the single knowledge fields the key is to be found in the general epistemological theories. It is shown how basic epistemological assumptions have formed the different approaches to psychology during the 20th century. The progress in the understanding of basic philosophical questions is decisive both for the development of a knowledge field and as the point of departure of classification. The theoretical principles developed in this paper are applied in a brief analysis of some concrete classification systems, including the one used by PsycINFO / Psychologcal Abstracts. The role of classification in modern information retrieval is also briefly discussed
-
Dousa, T.M.: Categories and the architectonics of system in Julius Otto Kaiser's method of systematic indexing (2014)
0.01
0.013933806 = product of:
0.055735223 = sum of:
0.042312715 = weight(_text_:case in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042312715 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
0.03962768 = queryNorm
0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 1418, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1418)
0.013422508 = product of:
0.026845016 = sum of:
0.026845016 = weight(_text_:22 in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026845016 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03962768 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Abstract
- Categories, or concepts of high generality representing the most basic kinds of entities in the world, have long been understood to be a fundamental element in the construction of knowledge organization systems (KOSs), particularly faceted ones. Commentators on facet analysis have tended to foreground the role of categories in the structuring of controlled vocabularies and the construction of compound index terms, and the implications of this for subject representation and information retrieval. Less attention has been paid to the variety of ways in which categories can shape the overall architectonic framework of a KOS. This case study explores the range of functions that categories took in structuring various aspects of an early analytico-synthetic KOS, Julius Otto Kaiser's method of Systematic Indexing (SI). Within SI, categories not only functioned as mechanisms to partition an index vocabulary into smaller groupings of terms and as elements in the construction of compound index terms but also served as means of defining the units of indexing, or index items, incorporated into an index; determining the organization of card index files and the articulation of the guide card system serving as a navigational aids thereto; and setting structural constraints to the establishment of cross-references between terms. In all these ways, Kaiser's system of categories contributed to the general systematicity of SI.
- 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
-
Green, R.: Relational aspects of subject authority control : the contributions of classificatory structure (2015)
0.01
0.013933806 = product of:
0.055735223 = sum of:
0.042312715 = weight(_text_:case in 2282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042312715 = score(doc=2282,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
0.03962768 = queryNorm
0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 2282, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2282)
0.013422508 = product of:
0.026845016 = sum of:
0.026845016 = weight(_text_:22 in 2282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026845016 = score(doc=2282,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03962768 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2282, 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=2282)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Abstract
- The structure of a classification system contributes in a variety of ways to representing semantic relationships between its topics in the context of subject authority control. We explore this claim using the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system as a case study. The DDC links its classes into a notational hierarchy, supplemented by a network of relationships between topics, expressed in class descriptions and in the Relative Index (RI). Topics/subjects are expressed both by the natural language text of the caption and notes (including Manual notes) in a class description and by the controlled vocabulary of the RI's alphabetic index, which shows where topics are treated in the classificatory structure. The expression of relationships between topics depends on paradigmatic and syntagmatic relationships between natural language terms in captions, notes, and RI terms; on the meaning of specific note types; and on references recorded between RI terms. The specific means used in the DDC for capturing hierarchical (including disciplinary), equivalence and associative relationships are surveyed.
- Date
- 8.11.2015 21:27:22
-
Feibleman, J.K.: Theory of integrative levels (1985)
0.01
0.013187402 = product of:
0.052749608 = sum of:
0.018899433 = weight(_text_:libraries in 3637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018899433 = score(doc=3637,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
0.03962768 = queryNorm
0.14518027 = fieldWeight in 3637, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3637)
0.033850174 = weight(_text_:case in 3637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.033850174 = score(doc=3637,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
0.03962768 = queryNorm
0.1942959 = fieldWeight in 3637, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3637)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Abstract
- In the early 1960s, the Classification Research Group in London (q.v.) had reached the point in its experimentation with faceted classification systems where some kind of amalgamation of individual schemes was needed. They sought a unifying principle or set of principles that would provide a basis for a general system. The individual faceted schemes would not merge; what was central to one subject was fringe to another, but the fringes did not coalesce. In looking farther afield, they discovered the theory of "integrative levels" set forth by James K. Feibleman, Chairman and Professor of Philosophy at Tulane University until 1969 and author of forty-five books and more than 175 articles in various fields of philosophy. Feibleman's research concerned the development of the sciences considered in terms of an organizing principle. In the physical sciences, one Gould begin with subparticles and work up to atoms, molecules, and molecular assemblages, interpolating the biological equivalents. Feibleman separates the various levels by use of a "no return" device: "each level organizes the level or levels below it plus one emergent quality." The process is not reversible without loss of identity. A dog, in his system, is no longer a dog when it has been run over by a car; the smashed parts cannot be put together again to function as a dog. The theory of integrative levels is an interesting one. The levels from subparticles to clusters of galaxies or from nuclei to organisms are relatively clearly defined. A discipline, such as any of the ones comprising the "hard sciences," is made up of integrative levels. Research is cumulative so that scholars are ready to contribute when very young. Classification in these fields can make good use of the theory of integrative levels-in fact it should do so. It would appear that the method is more difficult to apply in the social sciences and humanities. This appearance may, however, be superficial. Almost all past happenings are irrevocable; one cannot recall the French Revolution and re-fight it. Any academic discipline that moves an over time does not usually return to an earlier position, even when there are schools of thought involved. Philosophy may have "neo-" this or that, but the subsequent new is not the same as the previous new. One has only to look at the various kinds of neo-Platonists that arise from time to time to realize that. Physical science recognizes a series of paradigms in changing its methodology over time and a similar situation may also turn out to be true in cognitive science." If this should turn out to be the case, integrative levels would probably have a part in that field as weIl.
- Imprint
- Littleton, CO : Libraries Unlimited
-
Malla, N.: Classification of knowledge : a study in the foundations of library science (1991)
0.01
0.012199646 = product of:
0.09759717 = sum of:
0.09759717 = weight(_text_:studies in 3004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09759717 = score(doc=3004,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
0.03962768 = queryNorm
0.6172141 = fieldWeight in 3004, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3004)
0.125 = coord(1/8)
- Source
- Indian journal of library studies. 2(1991) no.2, S.163-168
-
Gopinath, M.A.: Paradigms, paradigm shifts and classification (1999)
0.01
0.012199646 = product of:
0.09759717 = sum of:
0.09759717 = weight(_text_:studies in 6152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09759717 = score(doc=6152,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
0.03962768 = queryNorm
0.6172141 = fieldWeight in 6152, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6152)
0.125 = coord(1/8)
- Source
- Library science with a slant to documentation and information studies. 36(1999) no.2, S.73-77
-
Beghtol, C.: Response to Hjoerland and Nicolaisen (2004)
0.01
0.012055123 = product of:
0.048220493 = sum of:
0.029618902 = weight(_text_:case in 3536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029618902 = score(doc=3536,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
0.03962768 = queryNorm
0.17000891 = fieldWeight in 3536, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3536)
0.018601589 = product of:
0.037203178 = sum of:
0.037203178 = weight(_text_:area in 3536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037203178 = score(doc=3536,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
0.03962768 = queryNorm
0.19053608 = fieldWeight in 3536, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3536)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Abstract
- Second, the paper posits that these different reasons for creating classification systems strongly influence the content and extent of the two kinds of classifications, but not necessarily their structures. By definition, naïve classifications for new knowledge have been developed for discrete areas of disciplinary inquiry in new areas of knowledge. These classifications do not attempt to classify the whole of that disciplinary area. That is, naïve classifications have a explicit purpose that is significantly different from the purpose of the major disciplinary classifications Hjoer-land and Nicolaisen provide as examples of classifications they think I discuss under the rubric of "naïve classifications" (e.g., classifications for the entire field of archaeology, biology, linguistics, music, psychology, etc.). My paper is not concerned with these important classifications for major disciplinary areas. Instead, it is concerned solely and specifically with scholarly classifications for small areas of new knowledge within these major disciplines (e.g., cloth of aresta, double harpsichords, child-rearing practices, anomalous phenomena, etc.). Thus, I have nowhere suggested or implied that the broad disciplinary classifications mentioned by Hjoerland and Nicolaisen are appropriately categorized as "naïve classifications." For example, I have not associated the Periodic System of the Elements with naïve classifications, as Hjoerland and Nicolaisen state that I have done. Indeed, broad classifications of this type fall well outside the definition of naïve classifications set out in my paper. In this case, too, 1 believe that Hjorland and Nicolaisen have misunderstood an important point in my paper. I agree with a number of points made in Hjorland and Nicolaisen's paper. In particular, I agree that researchers in the knowledge organization field should adhere to the highest standards of scholarly and scientific precision. For that reason, I am glad to have had the opportunity to respond to their paper.
-
Tennis, J.T.: ¬The strange case of eugenics : a subject's ontogeny in a long-lived classification scheme and the question of collocative integrity (2012)
0.01
0.011967843 = product of:
0.09574275 = sum of:
0.09574275 = weight(_text_:case in 275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09574275 = score(doc=275,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
0.03962768 = queryNorm
0.5495518 = fieldWeight in 275, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=275)
0.125 = coord(1/8)
- Abstract
- This article introduces the problem of collocative integrity present in long-lived classification schemes that undergo several changes. A case study of the subject "eugenics" in the Dewey Decimal Classification is presented to illustrate this phenomenon. Eugenics is strange because of the kinds of changes it undergoes. The article closes with a discussion of subject ontogeny as the name for this phenomenon and describes implications for information searching and browsing.
-
Frické, M.: Logic and the organization of information (2012)
0.01
0.011946537 = product of:
0.047786146 = sum of:
0.023386855 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023386855 = score(doc=1782,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
0.03962768 = queryNorm
0.17965141 = fieldWeight in 1782, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1782)
0.024399292 = weight(_text_:studies in 1782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024399292 = score(doc=1782,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
0.03962768 = queryNorm
0.15430352 = fieldWeight in 1782, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1782)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Abstract
- Logic and the Organization of Information closely examines the historical and contemporary methodologies used to catalogue information objects-books, ebooks, journals, articles, web pages, images, emails, podcasts and more-in the digital era. This book provides an in-depth technical background for digital librarianship, and covers a broad range of theoretical and practical topics including: classification theory, topic annotation, automatic clustering, generalized synonymy and concept indexing, distributed libraries, semantic web ontologies and Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS). It also analyzes the challenges facing today's information architects, and outlines a series of techniques for overcoming them. Logic and the Organization of Information is intended for practitioners and professionals working at a design level as a reference book for digital librarianship. Advanced-level students, researchers and academics studying information science, library science, digital libraries and computer science will also find this book invaluable.
- Footnote
- Rez. in: J. Doc. 70(2014) no.4: "Books on the organization of information and knowledge, aimed at a library/information audience, tend to fall into two clear categories. Most are practical and pragmatic, explaining the "how" as much or more than the "why". Some are theoretical, in part or in whole, showing how the practice of classification, indexing, resource description and the like relates to philosophy, logic, and other foundational bases; the books by Langridge (1992) and by Svenonious (2000) are well-known examples this latter kind. To this category certainly belongs a recent book by Martin Frické (2012). The author takes the reader for an extended tour through a variety of aspects of information organization, including classification and taxonomy, alphabetical vocabularies and indexing, cataloguing and FRBR, and aspects of the semantic web. The emphasis throughout is on showing how practice is, or should be, underpinned by formal structures; there is a particular emphasis on first order predicate calculus. The advantages of a greater, and more explicit, use of symbolic logic is a recurring theme of the book. There is a particularly commendable historical dimension, often omitted in texts on this subject. It cannot be said that this book is entirely an easy read, although it is well written with a helpful index, and its arguments are generally well supported by clear and relevant examples. It is thorough and detailed, but thereby seems better geared to the needs of advanced students and researchers than to the practitioners who are suggested as a main market. For graduate students in library/information science and related disciplines, in particular, this will be a valuable resource. I would place it alongside Svenonious' book as the best insight into the theoretical "why" of information organization. It has evoked a good deal of interest, including a set of essay commentaries in Journal of Information Science (Gilchrist et al., 2013). Introducing these, Alan Gilchrist rightly says that Frické deserves a salute for making explicit the fundamental relationship between the ancient discipline of logic and modern information organization. If information science is to continue to develop, and make a contribution to the organization of the information environments of the future, then this book sets the groundwork for the kind of studies which will be needed." (D. Bawden)
-
Srivastava, A.P.: Theory of knowledge classification in libraries (1964)
0.01
0.011693427 = product of:
0.09354742 = sum of:
0.09354742 = weight(_text_:libraries in 6250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09354742 = score(doc=6250,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
0.03962768 = queryNorm
0.71860564 = fieldWeight in 6250, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6250)
0.125 = coord(1/8)
- Footnote
- Rez. in: College and research libraries 27(1966) no.2, S.142 (D.J. Foskett)
-
Keilty, P.: Tabulating queer : space, perversion, and belonging (2009)
0.01
0.009858803 = product of:
0.07887042 = sum of:
0.07887042 = weight(_text_:studies in 3253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07887042 = score(doc=3253,freq=4.0), product of:
0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
0.03962768 = queryNorm
0.4987843 = fieldWeight in 3253, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3253)
0.125 = coord(1/8)
- 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.
-
Molholt, P.: Qualities of classification schemes for the Information Superhighway (1995)
0.01
0.009261699 = product of:
0.037046798 = sum of:
0.023624292 = weight(_text_:libraries in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023624292 = score(doc=5562,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
0.03962768 = queryNorm
0.18147534 = fieldWeight in 5562, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5562)
0.013422508 = product of:
0.026845016 = sum of:
0.026845016 = weight(_text_:22 in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026845016 = score(doc=5562,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03962768 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5562, 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=5562)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.25 = coord(2/8)
- Footnote
- Paper presented at the 36th Allerton Institute, 23-25 Oct 94, Allerton Park, Monticello, IL: "New Roles for Classification in Libraries and Information Networks: Presentation and Reports"
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 21(1995) no.2, S.19-22
