Search (46 results, page 1 of 3)

0.015861977 = product of:
  0.095171854 = sum of:
    0.095171854 = weight(_text_:libraries in 6250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.095171854 = score(doc=6250,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13243961 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Footnote

Rez. in: College and research libraries 27(1966) no.2, S.142 (D.J. Foskett)

0.014660632 = product of:
  0.08796379 = sum of:
    0.08796379 = product of:
      0.17592758 = sum of:
        0.17592758 = weight(_text_:congresses in 2072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.17592758 = score(doc=2072,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.32709694 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.113368 = idf(docFreq=35, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040315803 = queryNorm
            0.5378454 = fieldWeight in 2072, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              8.113368 = idf(docFreq=35, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2072)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

LCSH

Classification / Congresses
Knowledge, Theory of / Congresses

Subject

Classification / Congresses
Knowledge, Theory of / Congresses

0.01256337 = product of:
  0.03769011 = sum of:
    0.024034524 = weight(_text_:libraries in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024034524 = score(doc=5562,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13243961 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = 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)
    0.013655587 = product of:
      0.027311174 = sum of:
        0.027311174 = weight(_text_:22 in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027311174 = score(doc=5562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14117907 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040315803 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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

0.009063987 = product of:
  0.05438392 = sum of:
    0.05438392 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05438392 = score(doc=1603,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13243961 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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

0.0064092064 = product of:
  0.038455237 = sum of:
    0.038455237 = weight(_text_:libraries in 5099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038455237 = score(doc=5099,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13243961 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.29036054 = fieldWeight in 5099, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5099)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to define what is meant by facet analysis, and to review briefly the history of facet analysis within the context of other types of subject analysis in libraries and within the context of information retrieval research

0.0056080557 = product of:
  0.033648334 = sum of:
    0.033648334 = weight(_text_:libraries in 4136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033648334 = score(doc=4136,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13243961 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.25406548 = fieldWeight in 4136, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4136)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Several desiderata of a system of subject classification for museums are identified. The limitations of existing approaches are reviewed. It is argued that an approach which synthesizes basic concepts within a grammatical structure can achieve the goals of subject classification in museums while addressing diverse challenges. The same approach can also be applied in galleries, archives, and libraries. The approach is described in some detail and examples are provided of its application. The article closes with brief discussions of thesauri and linked open data.

0.0056080557 = product of:
  0.033648334 = sum of:
    0.033648334 = weight(_text_:libraries in 5717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033648334 = score(doc=5717,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13243961 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.25406548 = fieldWeight in 5717, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5717)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Information Technology and Libraries. 36(2017) no.3, S.48-77

0.0055505354 = product of:
  0.033303212 = sum of:
    0.033303212 = weight(_text_:libraries in 3621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033303212 = score(doc=3621,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13243961 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.2514596 = fieldWeight in 3621, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3621)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Henry Evelyn Bliss (1870-1955) devoted several decades of his life to the study of classification and the development of the Bibliographic Classification scheme while serving as a librarian in the College of the City of New York. In the course of the development of the Bibliographic Classification, Bliss developed a body of classification theory published in a number of articles and books, among which the best known are The Organization of Knowledge and the System of the Sciences (1929), Organization of Knowledge in Libraries and the Subject Approach to Books (1933; 2nd ed., 1939), and the lengthy preface to A Bibliographic Classification (Volumes 1-2, 1940; 2nd ed., 1952). In developing the Bibliographic Classification, Bliss carefully established its philosophical and theoretical basis, more so than was attempted by the makers of other classification schemes, with the possible exception of S. R. Ranganathan (q.v.) and his Colon Classification. The basic principles established by Bliss for the Bibliographic Classification are: consensus, collocation of related subjects, subordination of special to general and gradation in specialty, and the relativity of classes and of classification (hence alternative location and alternative treatment). In the preface to the schedules of A Bibliographic Classification, Bliss spells out the general principles of classification as weIl as principles specifically related to his scheme. The first volume of the schedules appeared in 1940. In 1952, he issued a second edition of the volume with a rewritten preface, from which the following excerpt is taken, and with the addition of a "Concise Synopsis," which is also included here to illustrate the principles of classificatory structure. In the excerpt reprinted below, Bliss discusses the correlation between classes, concepts, and terms, as weIl as the hierarchical structure basic to his classification scheme. In his discussion of cross-classification, Bliss recognizes the "polydimensional" nature of classification and the difficulties inherent in the two-dimensional approach which is characteristic of linear classification. This is one of the earliest works in which the multidimensional nature of classification is recognized. The Bibliographic Classification did not meet with great success in the United States because the Dewey Decimal Classification and the Library of Congress Classification were already weIl ensconced in American libraries by then. Nonetheless, it attracted considerable attention in the British Commonwealth and elsewhere in the world. A committee was formed in Britain which later became the Bliss Classification Association. A faceted edition of the scheme has been in preparation under the direction of J. Mills and V. Broughton. Several parts of this new edition, entitled Bliss Bibliographic Classification, have been published.

Imprint

Littleton, CO : Libraries Unlimited

0.0054622344 = product of:
  0.032773405 = sum of:
    0.032773405 = product of:
      0.06554681 = sum of:
        0.06554681 = weight(_text_:22 in 6404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06554681 = score(doc=6404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14117907 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040315803 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6404, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6404)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.0054622344 = product of:
  0.032773405 = sum of:
    0.032773405 = product of:
      0.06554681 = sum of:
        0.06554681 = weight(_text_:22 in 3773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06554681 = score(doc=3773,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14117907 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040315803 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3773, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3773)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.0054622344 = product of:
  0.032773405 = sum of:
    0.032773405 = product of:
      0.06554681 = sum of:
        0.06554681 = weight(_text_:22 in 3176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06554681 = score(doc=3176,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14117907 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040315803 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3176, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3176)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

6. 5.2017 18:46:22

0.0040057544 = product of:
  0.024034524 = sum of:
    0.024034524 = weight(_text_:libraries in 423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024034524 = score(doc=423,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13243961 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.0040057544 = product of:
  0.024034524 = sum of:
    0.024034524 = weight(_text_:libraries in 3183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024034524 = score(doc=3183,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13243961 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.18147534 = fieldWeight in 3183, 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=3183)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Division is obviously important to Knowledge Organization. Typically, an organizational infrastructure might acknowledge three types of connecting relationships: class hierarchies, where some classes are subclasses of others, partitive hierarchies, where some items are parts of others, and instantiation, where some items are members of some classes (see Z39.19 ANSI/NISO 2005 as an example). The first two of these involve division (the third, instantiation, does not involve division). Logical division would usually be a part of hierarchical classification systems, which, in turn, are central to shelving in libraries, to subject classification schemes, to controlled vocabularies, and to thesauri. Partitive hierarchies, and partitive division, are often essential to controlled vocabularies, thesauri, and subject tagging systems. Partitive hierarchies also relate to the bearers of information; for example, a journal would typically have its component articles as parts and, in turn, they might have sections as their parts, and, of course, components might be arrived at by partitive division (see Tillett 2009 as an illustration). Finally, verbal division, disambiguating homographs, is basic to controlled vocabularies. Thus Division is a broad and relevant topic. This article, though, is going to focus on Logical Division.

0.0040057544 = product of:
  0.024034524 = sum of:
    0.024034524 = weight(_text_:libraries in 3417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024034524 = score(doc=3417,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13243961 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.18147534 = fieldWeight in 3417, 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=3417)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This is the first part of a study on the classification of phenomena. It starts by addressing the status of classification schemes among knowledge organization systems (KOSs), as some features of them have been overlooked in recent reviews of KOS types. It then considers the different dimensions implied in a KOS, which include: the observed phenomena, the cultural and disciplinary perspective under which they are treated, the features of documents carrying such treatment, the collections of such documents as managed in libraries, archives or museums, the information needs prompting to search and use these collections and the people experiencing such different information needs. Until now, most library classification schemes have given priority to the perspective dimension as they first list disciplines. However, an increasing number of voices are now considering the possibility of classification schemes giving priority to phenomena as advocated in the León Manifesto. Although these schemes first list phenomena as their main classes, they can as well express perspective or the other relevant dimensions that occur in a classified item. The independence of a phenomenon-based classification from the institutional divisions into disciplines contributes to giving knowledge organization a more proactive and influential role.

0.003965494 = product of:
  0.023792963 = sum of:
    0.023792963 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023792963 = score(doc=1782,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13243961 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.00364149 = product of:
  0.02184894 = sum of:
    0.02184894 = product of:
      0.04369788 = sum of:
        0.04369788 = weight(_text_:22 in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04369788 = score(doc=7242,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14117907 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040315803 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7242, 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=7242)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 4.1997 21:10:19

0.00364149 = product of:
  0.02184894 = sum of:
    0.02184894 = product of:
      0.04369788 = sum of:
        0.04369788 = weight(_text_:22 in 1171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04369788 = score(doc=1171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14117907 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040315803 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

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

0.00364149 = product of:
  0.02184894 = sum of:
    0.02184894 = product of:
      0.04369788 = sum of:
        0.04369788 = weight(_text_:22 in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04369788 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14117907 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040315803 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5083, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5083)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

27. 5.2007 22:19:35

0.00364149 = product of:
  0.02184894 = sum of:
    0.02184894 = product of:
      0.04369788 = sum of:
        0.04369788 = weight(_text_:22 in 4339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04369788 = score(doc=4339,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14117907 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040315803 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4339, 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=4339)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Pages

S.1-22

0.0032046032 = product of:
  0.019227618 = sum of:
    0.019227618 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019227618 = score(doc=2759,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13243961 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040315803 = queryNorm
        0.14518027 = fieldWeight in 2759, 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=2759)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

1. Introduction Theoretical context independent explanations of classification could enhance the universality of classification research and make knowledge about classification available to settings other than traditional libraries. There is a tremendous need for constructing classificatory structures in a range of settings many of which are far removed from the environment in which classification theory and research has been practiced in the last century and a half. The construction of classificatory structures an the Internet, intranets, and in knowledge management systems has received some attention lately. The question examined here is whether it is possible to create a single theory of classification that applies to the range of contexts in which classificatory structures are applied. The object of this paper is to question the assumption that bibliographic classification theory can resemble scientific theories. It is argued that the context of any classification influences the use and understanding of the classification to such a degree that the classification cannot be understood separate from its context. Furthermore, the development from being a novice classifier or classificationist to becoming an expert is explored. lt is assumed scientific theories must relate as much to the activity of novices as to the activity of experts and that scientific theories explain both what it is that novices do and what experts do. It is argued that expertise is achieved not through a correct application of a classification theory but through experiences and adjustment to a particular context and that the activities of novices are quite distinct from the activities of experts in that experts draws an the context of the situation and that novices do not. 2. Theory of Classification Langridge (1976) provides an account of the principles of constructing knowledge organization systems and the theoretical underpinnings of different approaches. He identifies four principles that have guided construction of knowledge organization systems: 1) ideological, 2) social purpose, 3) scientific, and 4) the disciplines. The ideological principle organizes knowledge according to an ideology that the knowledge organization system serves. Langridge gives the examples of "the Christian schemes of the Middle Ages and the Soviet scheme which substitutes for the Bible and Christianity the works of Marx and Lenin and the 'religion' of communism" (Langridge, 1976, p. 4-5).