Search (27 results, page 1 of 2)

0.04405374 = product of:
  0.15418808 = sum of:
    0.08208992 = weight(_text_:great in 869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08208992 = score(doc=869,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21992016 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.37327147 = fieldWeight in 869, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=869)
    0.07209816 = product of:
      0.14419632 = sum of:
        0.14419632 = weight(_text_:britain in 869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14419632 = score(doc=869,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.29147226 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.462781 = idf(docFreq=68, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = queryNorm
            0.49471712 = fieldWeight in 869, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.462781 = idf(docFreq=68, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=869)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

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

0.02936916 = product of:
  0.102792054 = sum of:
    0.05472661 = weight(_text_:great in 3621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05472661 = score(doc=3621,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21992016 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.24884763 = fieldWeight in 3621, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3621)
    0.04806544 = product of:
      0.09613088 = sum of:
        0.09613088 = weight(_text_:britain in 3621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09613088 = score(doc=3621,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.29147226 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.462781 = idf(docFreq=68, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = queryNorm
            0.32981142 = fieldWeight in 3621, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.462781 = idf(docFreq=68, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3621)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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.

0.020599475 = product of:
  0.14419632 = sum of:
    0.14419632 = product of:
      0.28839263 = sum of:
        0.28839263 = weight(_text_:britain in 6154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.28839263 = score(doc=6154,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.29147226 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.462781 = idf(docFreq=68, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = queryNorm
            0.98943424 = fieldWeight in 6154, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.462781 = idf(docFreq=68, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6154)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

0.013820557 = product of:
  0.0967439 = sum of:
    0.0967439 = weight(_text_:great in 2152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0967439 = score(doc=2152,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21992016 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.43990463 = fieldWeight in 2152, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2152)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The decimal system is one system of a number of possible systems of ordering - and a very symbolic also. The ordering in ten chapters, themes, numbers, etc. you can find often in history. Indeed Dewey is not the genius-founder of decimal classification (against a number of authors)! For ordering and structuring separate schemes within a classification DDC creates a number of important negative solutions, e.g. in the main classes the 'lost' of physics and of medicine as special schemes: Nearly a catastrophe in the times of STM! And against an enormous tradition like Leibniz 1646 - 1716) et alii! Compare Bliss: The Bliss-Classification gives space for 6 numbers »sciences« in a context of 26 classes. Therefore the result in short: DDC (and UDC of course!) are »flowers« of the past, of the first decades of century 20! As a fact the Decimal Classification within the tradition of Melvil Dewey is not a final work: See the increasing number of newly constructed decimal classifications during the years 80 and 90 of the 20th century! Nevertheless DDC is a very great (problem and) solution in its development, internationality, reception - and edge-stone for many thinkers and librarians throughout the world - and an important example for modern translational work! Magda Heiner-Freiling has given to us a great stone for the edifice of Modern DDC: Requiescat in pace!

0.013681654 = product of:
  0.09577157 = sum of:
    0.09577157 = weight(_text_:great in 1243) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09577157 = score(doc=1243,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21992016 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.43548337 = fieldWeight in 1243, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1243)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The history of book numbers starts only with Melvil Dewey, as before hom books were shelved in fixed location systems. The article traces the early attempts by Dewey himself to combine class numbers with author numbers and shows the development in the individualization of book numbers by a great number of classificationists and classifiers, among which J. Schwartz, W.S. Biscoe, Ch.A. Cutter, K.E. Sanborn, J.D. Brown, A.F. Rider and finally S.R. Ranganathan whose faceted structure and ease of application of book numbers seems still to be the optimal solution. Two rival systems of book numbers are alphabetical by author and chronological by the year of publication of a books. The concluding chapter is devoted to the existing literatur on book numbers and laments its vanishing quality. The study of book numbers is not getting due attention.

0.010299738 = product of:
  0.07209816 = sum of:
    0.07209816 = product of:
      0.14419632 = sum of:
        0.14419632 = weight(_text_:britain in 7646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.14419632 = score(doc=7646,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.29147226 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.462781 = idf(docFreq=68, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = queryNorm
            0.49471712 = fieldWeight in 7646, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.462781 = idf(docFreq=68, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7646)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Content

KUMAR, P.S.G.: Ranganathan through classification; LANGRIDGE, D.W.: My debt to Ranganathan; SUBBA RAO, C.V.: Controversies on Dr. S.R. Ranganathan; CHAND, K. u. G. SINGH: Impact of information technology on Ranganathan's five laws; SATIJA, M.P.: Research in librarianship before and after Ranganathan; BATTY, C.D.: The influence of Ranganathan on the structural design of index languages; DHYANI, P.: Ranganathan's normatice principles and Dewey Decimal Classification; FRIIS-HANSEN, J.: Facets and clusters; HUNTER, E.J.: Ranganathan UK: The influence of Ranganathan's work on the development of classification and indexing in the United Kingdom; McILWAINE, I.C.: Ranganathan and classification in Britain; BAKEWELL, K.G.B.: Ranganathan and library management; BHARGAVA, G,D.: Dr. S.R. Ranganathan - my teacher and mentor; NAVALINI, K.: The tallest torch bearer; COMARONI, J.P.: Ranganathan's influence on American librarianship; KONNOR, M.B.: Dr. S.R. Ranganathan - American view; SHARMA, R.N.: Ranganathan and the United States

0.009376042 = product of:
  0.032816146 = sum of:
    0.019587006 = weight(_text_:based in 116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019587006 = score(doc=116,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.16644597 = fieldWeight in 116, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=116)
    0.013229139 = product of:
      0.026458278 = sum of:
        0.026458278 = weight(_text_:22 in 116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026458278 = score(doc=116,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13677022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 116, 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=116)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The origin of the abridged edition of the Dewey system goes back to 1894 when an outline of 192 pages based on the full 5th Edition (1894) was issued for small public and school libraries of North America. New editions have appeared regularly following closely the publication of new full editions. An abridged version, which is always in one volume, comprises an introduction, schedules, four tables (namely 1, 2, 3 and 4) only, and the relative index and other minor features of the full edition, and has shorter numbers. Abridged 15 is a logical abridgement of the DDC23 (2011) and is a product of a new approach to development of an abridged edition of the DDC. Its content has been derived from the DDC database applying a set of rules to extract the edition using the new (2010) version of the editorial support system. The revision process has been informed by interaction with an always widening and diversified Dewey community at home and abroad. It aims to improve the currency of the schedules continuing to serve as shelving tool while recognizing its 'other' uses as a spinoff of its simplicity and inexpensiveness.

Date

3. 3.2016 18:59:22

0.006047607 = product of:
  0.042333245 = sum of:
    0.042333245 = product of:
      0.08466649 = sum of:
        0.08466649 = weight(_text_:22 in 1168) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08466649 = score(doc=1168,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13677022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 1168, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1168)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Nachrichten für Dokumentation. 22(1971), S.55-63

0.005815833 = product of:
  0.04071083 = sum of:
    0.04071083 = weight(_text_:based in 971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04071083 = score(doc=971,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.34595144 = fieldWeight in 971, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=971)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This paper examines how classification schemes provide subject access. Concept arrangement before computers is compared to its role after machine-based exact match techniques have evolved. The change in retrieval techniques corresponds to a change in philosophy of knowledge. Classification schemes, emerging from Aristotelian philosophy, provide conceptual frameworks for direct human interaction to foster reference and communication. Computer-based systems provide access with a different emphasis on conceptual arrangement. Employing a philosophy of knowledge as facets, computer programs use word-frequency analyses, uncontrolled vocabulary, and feedback procedures to define subject access. Classification for machine processing optimizes the power of these systems. Though the influence of Aristotelian philosophy declines, structures for concept communication continue to be instrumental in the efficient operation of computer-based systems. Ongoing classification work can help direct vague inquiries and reflect human and social relationships to knowledge

0.0047486075 = product of:
  0.03324025 = sum of:
    0.03324025 = weight(_text_:based in 2532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03324025 = score(doc=2532,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.28246817 = fieldWeight in 2532, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2532)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The current trend of simplifying user access to documents in public libraries in France has led to strong criticism of the traditional use of decimal classification, and growing popularity for classifying by centres of interest. The notion of locating documents 'where the reader expects to find them' does not bear reasoned analysis: this approach depends on the subjective attitudes of the reader, whose preconceptions are unknown. Public libraries serve readers of all types, and therefore the classification used must be based on general objective criteria. Argues for the retension of traditional encyclopedic classifications (UDC or Dewey), which despite their drawbacks, are based on subject structures known to everyone, and allow for updating to accommodate new concepts. Classification can operate with visual labelling systems, to simplify access: this approach provides ready identification of centres of interest without discarding the real advantages of universality.

0.004535705 = product of:
  0.031749934 = sum of:
    0.031749934 = product of:
      0.06349987 = sum of:
        0.06349987 = weight(_text_:22 in 3554) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06349987 = score(doc=3554,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13677022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3554, 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=3554)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

25.12.1995 22:28:43

0.00447703 = product of:
  0.03133921 = sum of:
    0.03133921 = weight(_text_:based in 4521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03133921 = score(doc=4521,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.26631355 = fieldWeight in 4521, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4521)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

J. Kaiser (1868-1927) developed a system of subject indexing based on what he called "concretes" and "processes" to govern the form of subject headings and subdivisions. Although Kaiser applied his systematic indexing to specialized technical and business collections, his ideas are entirely applicable to all book collections and catalogs. Though largely ignored, Kaiser's system is of permanent interest in the study of the development of subject analysis

0.0033577727 = product of:
  0.023504408 = sum of:
    0.023504408 = weight(_text_:based in 2153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023504408 = score(doc=2153,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.19973516 = fieldWeight in 2153, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2153)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The history of classified order relating to the Bavarian State Library dates back to the library's origins and the theoretical treatise its collections inspired. Many more classifications followed to facilitate practical access to the ever expanding collections, both in the open-access areas and in the closed stacks. The most comprehensive classifications used in the library are introduced in chronological order and as instruments to ensure the continuity of subject access in a kind of logical sequence: the Classified Shelf-Register of 1814, the Old Classified Catalogue 1501 - 1952 dating from the 1870s, the Hirschberger Catalogue 1953 - 1981, the Munich Classification of 1983 and the development of an Online Classification (DDC) based on the Dewey Decimal Classification from a predecessor in 1999 to announce the latest acquisitions in the special collection fields.

0.0033577727 = product of:
  0.023504408 = sum of:
    0.023504408 = weight(_text_:based in 3860) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023504408 = score(doc=3860,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.19973516 = fieldWeight in 3860, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3860)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The studies of library classifications generally interact with a historical approach that contextualizes the research and with the ideas related to classification that are typical of Philosophy. In the 19th century, the North-American philosopher and educator William Torrey Harris developed a book classification at the St. Louis Public School, based on Francis Bacon and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. The objective of the present study is to analyze Harris's classification, reflecting upon his theoretical and philosophical backgrounds in order to understand Harris's contribution to Knowledge Organization (KO). To achieve such objective, this study adopts a critical - descriptive approach for the analysis. The results show some influences of Bacon and Hegel in Harris's classification

0.0031657384 = product of:
  0.022160169 = sum of:
    0.022160169 = weight(_text_:based in 3623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022160169 = score(doc=3623,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.18831211 = fieldWeight in 3623, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3623)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

It has been generally recognized that the Library of Congress Classification, developed at the turn of the century, has been based an practical rather than theoreti cal or philosophical considerations. Unlike most of the other library classification systems, which originated from individual minds, the Library of Congress Classification system was the result of corporate efforts. Nonetheless, there were a number of individuals who, in the early stages of its development, provided guidance regarding the general framework and direction of the scheme. The most important among these was Charles Martel (1860-1945) who was Chief Classifier at the Library of Congress when the system was first developed. In a paper read before the New Zealand Library Association in April 1911, from which the following excerpt has been taken, Martel gave his views concerning library classification in general and provided a glimpse of the rationale behind the Library of Congress Classification system in particular. In the following excerpt, Martel discusses the basis of the Library of Congress Classification system to be not "the scientific order of subjects ... [but] rather [a] convenient sequence of the various groups ... of books." This is the "literary warrant" an which the Library of Congress system has been based. With regard to the notation, Martel argues for brevity in preference to symmetry or mnemonics. Brevity of notation has since been recognized as one of the greatest advantages of the Library of Congress system as a device for shelf arrangement of books. Martel outlines seven groupings used in the system for subarranging books an the subject, first by form and then by subject subdivisions. This pattern, known as Martel's "seven points," has served as the general framework in individual classes and provided the most significant unifying factor for individual classes in the system, which contain many unique or disparate characteristics.

0.0031657384 = product of:
  0.022160169 = sum of:
    0.022160169 = weight(_text_:based in 3626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022160169 = score(doc=3626,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.18831211 = fieldWeight in 3626, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3626)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

One of the earliest works on the theory of classification appeared in a series of six chapters an the "Principles of Book Classification" published between October 1911 and May 1912 in the Library Association Record. In this publication, the author, E. Wyndham Hulme (1859-1954) whose career included twenty-five years as Librarian of the British Patent Office, set forth the fundamentals of classification as manifested in both the classed and the alphabetical catalogs. The work and the ideas contained therein have largely been forgotten. However, one phrase stands out and has been used frequently in the discussions of classification and indexing, particularly in reference to systems such as Library of Congress Classification, Dewey Decimal Classification, and Library of Congress Subject Headings. That phrase is "literary warrant"-meaning that the basis for classification is to be found in the actual published literature rather than abstract philosophical ideas or concepts in the universe of knowledge or the "order of nature and system of the sciences." To the extent that classification and indexing systems should be based upon existing literature rather than the universe of human knowledge, the concept of "literary warrant" defines systems used in library and information services, as distinguished from a purely philosophical classification. Library classification attempts to classify library materials-the records of knowledge-rather than knowledge itself; the establishment of a class or a heading for a subject is based an existing literature treating that subject. The following excerpt contains Hulme's definition of "literary warrant." Hulme first rejects the notion of using "the nature of the subject matter to be divided" as the basis for establishing headings, then he proceeds to propose the use of "literary warrant," that is, "an accurate survey and measurement of classes in literature," as the determinant.

0.0031657384 = product of:
  0.022160169 = sum of:
    0.022160169 = weight(_text_:based in 3628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022160169 = score(doc=3628,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.18831211 = fieldWeight in 3628, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3628)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

To those outside the field of library science, the name Melvil Dewey (1851-1931) is virtually synonymous with library classification. To those in the field, Dewey has been recognized as the premier classification maker. His enormously successful system (i.e., successful in terms of the wide adoption of the system around the world for over one hundred years) has now undergone nineteen editions. The Dewey Decimal Classification has been translated into more than twenty languages and is the most widely adopted classification scheme in the world. Even in its earliest manifestations, the Dewey Decimal Classification contained features that anticipated modern classification theory. Among these are the use of mnemonics and the commonly applied standard subdivisions, later called "common isolates" by S. R. Ranganathan (q.v.), which are the mainstays of facet analysis and synthesis. The device of standard subdivisions is an indication of the recognition of common aspects that pervade all subjects. The use of mnemonics, whereby recurring concepts in the scheme are represented by the same notation, for example, geographic concepts and language concepts, eased the transition of the Dewey Decimal Classification from a largely enumerative system to an increasingly faceted one. Another significant feature of the Dewey Decimal Classification is the use of the hierarchical notation based an the arabic numeral system. To a large extent, this feature accounts for the wide use and success of the system in the world across language barriers. With the prospect of increasing online information retrieval, the hierarchical notation will have a significant impact an the effectiveness of the Dewey Decimal Classification as an online retrieval tool. Because the notation is hierarchical, for example, with increasing digits in a number representing narrower subjects and decreasing digits indicating broader subjects, the Dewey Decimal Classification is particularly useful in generic searches for broadening or narrowing search results. In the preface to the second edition of his Decimal Classification Dewey explained the features of his "new" system. The excerpt below presents his ideas and theory concerning the rational basis of his classification, the standard subdivisions, the hierarchical notation based an decimal numbers, the use of mnemonics, the relative index, and relative location. It also reflects Dewey's lifelong interest in simplified spelling.

0.0030238035 = product of:
  0.021166623 = sum of:
    0.021166623 = product of:
      0.042333245 = sum of:
        0.042333245 = weight(_text_:22 in 6607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042333245 = score(doc=6607,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13677022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 6607, 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=6607)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Probleme des Wiederaufbaus im wissenschaftlichen Bibliothekswesen: aus d. Verhandlungen des 1. Bibliothekartagung der britischen Zone in Hamburg vom 22.-24.10.1946

0.0029079164 = product of:
  0.020355415 = sum of:
    0.020355415 = weight(_text_:based in 2072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020355415 = score(doc=2072,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.17297572 = fieldWeight in 2072, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2072)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Content

Enthält die Beiträge: SVENONIUS, E.: Classification: prospects, problems, and possibilities; BEALL, J.: Editing the Dewey Decimal Classification online: the evolution of the DDC database; BEGHTOL, C.: Toward a theory of fiction analysis for information storage and retrieval; CRAVEN, T.C.: Concept relation structures and their graphic display; FUGMANN, R.: Illusory goals in information science research; GILCHRIST, A.: UDC: the 1990's and beyond; GREEN, R.: The expression of syntagmatic relationships in indexing: are frame-based index languages the answer?; HUMPHREY, S.M.: Use and management of classification systems for knowledge-based indexing; MIKSA, F.L.: The concept of the universe of knowledge and the purpose of LIS classification; SCOTT, M. u. A.F. FONSECA: Methodology for functional appraisal of records and creation of a functional thesaurus; ALBRECHTSEN, H.: PRESS: a thesaurus-based information system for software reuse; AMAESHI, B.: A preliminary AAT compatible African art thesaurus; CHATTERJEE, A.: Structures of Indian classification systems of the pre-Ranganathan era and their impact on the Colon Classification; COCHRANE, P.A.: Indexing and searching thesauri, the Janus or Proteus of information retrieval; CRAVEN, T.C.: A general versus a special algorithm in the graphic display of thesauri; DAHLBERG, I.: The basis of a new universal classification system seen from a philosophy of science point of view: DRABENSTOTT, K.M., RIESTER, L.C. u. B.A.DEDE: Shelflisting using expert systems; FIDEL, R.: Thesaurus requirements for an intermediary expert system; GREEN, R.: Insights into classification from the cognitive sciences: ramifications for index languages; GROLIER, E. de: Towards a syndetic information retrieval system; GUENTHER, R.: The USMARC format for classification data: development and implementation; HOWARTH, L.C.: Factors influencing policies for the adoption and integration of revisions to classification schedules; HUDON, M.: Term definitions in subject thesauri: the Canadian literacy thesaurus experience; HUSAIN, S.: Notational techniques for the accomodation of subjects in Colon Classification 7th edition: theoretical possibility vis-à-vis practical need; KWASNIK, B.H. u. C. JORGERSEN: The exploration by means of repertory grids of semantic differences among names of official documents; MICCO, M.: Suggestions for automating the Library of Congress Classification schedules; PERREAULT, J.M.: An essay on the prehistory of general categories (II): G.W. Leibniz, Conrad Gesner; REES-POTTER, L.K.: How well do thesauri serve the social sciences?; REVIE, C.W. u. G. SMART: The construction and the use of faceted classification schema in technical domains; ROCKMORE, M.: Structuring a flexible faceted thsaurus record for corporate information retrieval; ROULIN, C.: Sub-thesauri as part of a metathesaurus; SMITH, L.C.: UNISIST revisited: compatibility in the context of collaboratories; STILES, W.G.: Notes concerning the use chain indexing as a possible means of simulating the inductive leap within artificial intelligence; SVENONIUS, E., LIU, S. u. B. SUBRAHMANYAM: Automation in chain indexing; TURNER, J.: Structure in data in the Stockshot database at the National Film Board of Canada; VIZINE-GOETZ, D.: The Dewey Decimal Classification as an online classification tool; WILLIAMSON, N.J.: Restructuring UDC: problems and possibilies; WILSON, A.: The hierarchy of belief: ideological tendentiousness in universal classification; WILSON, B.F.: An evaluation of the systematic botany schedule of the Universal Decimal Classification (English full edition, 1979); ZENG, L.: Research and development of classification and thesauri in China; CONFERENCE SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

0.002645828 = product of:
  0.018520795 = sum of:
    0.018520795 = product of:
      0.03704159 = sum of:
        0.03704159 = weight(_text_:22 in 75) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03704159 = score(doc=75,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13677022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 75, 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=75)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

International forum on information and documentation. 22(1997) no.2, S.3-15