Search (72 results, page 1 of 4)

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.

0.02514151 = product of:
  0.087995276 = sum of:
    0.019587006 = weight(_text_:based in 1893) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019587006 = score(doc=1893,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.16644597 = fieldWeight in 1893, 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=1893)
    0.068408266 = weight(_text_:great in 1893) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068408266 = score(doc=1893,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21992016 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.31105953 = fieldWeight in 1893, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1893)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to respond to the 2005 paper by Hjørland and Nissen Pedersen by suggesting that an exhaustive and universal classification of the phenomena that scholars study, and the methods and theories they apply, is feasible. It seeks to argue that such a classification is critical for interdisciplinary scholarship. Design/methodology/approach - The paper presents a literature-based conceptual analysis, taking Hjørland and Nissen Pedersen as its starting point. Hjørland and Nissen Pedersen had identified several difficulties that would be encountered in developing such a classification; the paper suggests how each of these can be overcome. It also urges a deductive approach as complementary to the inductive approach recommended by Hjørland and Nissen Pedersen. Findings - The paper finds that an exhaustive and universal classification of scholarly documents in terms of (at least) the phenomena that scholars study, and the theories and methods they apply, appears to be both possible and desirable. Practical implications - The paper suggests how such a project can be begun. In particular it stresses the importance of classifying documents in terms of causal links between phenomena. Originality/value - The paper links the information science, interdisciplinary, and study of science literatures, and suggests that the types of classification outlined above would be of great value to scientists/scholars, and that they are possible.

0.02514151 = product of:
  0.087995276 = sum of:
    0.019587006 = weight(_text_:based in 4308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019587006 = score(doc=4308,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.16644597 = fieldWeight in 4308, 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=4308)
    0.068408266 = weight(_text_:great in 4308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068408266 = score(doc=4308,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21992016 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.31105953 = fieldWeight in 4308, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4308)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

One of the main topics of scientific research, classification is the operation consisting of distributing objects in classes or groups which are, in general, less numerous than them. From Antiquity to the Classical Age, it has a long history where philosophers (Aristotle), and natural scientists (Linnaeus), took a great part. But from the nineteenth century (with the growth of chemistry and information science) and the twentieth century (with the arrival of mathematical models and computer science), mathematics (especially theory of orders and theory of graphs or hypergraphs) allows us to compute all the possible partitions, chains of partitions, covers, hypergraphs or systems of classes we can construct on a domain. In spite of these advances, most of classifications are still based on the evaluation of ressemblances between objects that constitute the empirical data. However, all these classifications remain, for technical and epistemological reasons we detail below, very unstable ones. We lack a real algebra of classifications, which could explain their properties and the relations existing between them. Though the aim of a general theory of classifications is surely a wishful thought, some recent conjecture gives the hope that the existence of a metaclassification (or classification of all classification schemes) is possible

0.018710561 = product of:
  0.06548696 = sum of:
    0.044320337 = weight(_text_:based in 1171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044320337 = score(doc=1171,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.37662423 = fieldWeight in 1171, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1171)
    0.021166623 = product of:
      0.042333245 = sum of:
        0.042333245 = weight(_text_:22 in 1171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042333245 = score(doc=1171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13677022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

All classifications are based on ideologies and Dewey is marked by its author's origins in 19th century North America. Subsequent revisions indicate changed ways of understanding the world. Section 157 (psycho-pathology) is now included with 616.89 (mental troubles), reflecting the move to a genetic-based approach. Table 5 (racial, ethnic and national groups) is however unchanged, despite changing views on such categorisation

Source

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

0.015636176 = product of:
  0.10945322 = sum of:
    0.10945322 = weight(_text_:great in 3754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10945322 = score(doc=3754,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21992016 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.49769527 = fieldWeight in 3754, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3754)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

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

0.014933668 = product of:
  0.052267835 = sum of:
    0.013570276 = weight(_text_:based in 2824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013570276 = score(doc=2824,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.11531715 = fieldWeight in 2824, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2824)
    0.03869756 = weight(_text_:great in 2824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03869756 = score(doc=2824,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.21992016 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.17596185 = fieldWeight in 2824, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2824)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Footnote

Rez. in: KO 32(2005) no.1, S.47-49 (M. Hudon): "Vanda Broughton's Essential Classification is the most recent addition to a very small set of classification textbooks published over the past few years. The book's 21 chapters are based very closely an the cataloguing and classification module at the School of Library, Archive, and Information studies at University College, London. The author's main objective is clear: this is "first and foremost a book about how to classify. The emphasis throughout is an the activity of classification rather than the theory, the practical problems of the organization of collections, and the needs of the users" (p. 1). This is not a theoretical work, but a basic course in classification and classification scheme application. For this reviewer, who also teaches "Classification 101," this is also a fascinating peek into how a colleague organizes content and structures her course. "Classification is everywhere" (p. 1): the first sentence of this book is also one of the first statements in my own course, and Professor Broughton's metaphors - the supermarket, canned peas, flowers, etc. - are those that are used by our colleagues around the world. The combination of tone, writing style and content display are reader-friendly; they are in fact what make this book remarkable and what distinguishes it from more "formal" textbooks, such as The Organization of Information, the superb text written and recently updated (2004) by Professor Arlene Taylor (2nd ed. Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited, 2004). Reading Essential Classification, at times, feels like being in a classroom, facing a teacher who assures you that "you don't need to worry about this at this stage" (p. 104), and reassures you that, although you now speed a long time looking for things, "you will soon speed up when you get to know the scheme better" (p. 137). This teacher uses redundancy in a productive fashion, and she is not afraid to express her own opinions ("I think that if these concepts are helpful they may be used" (p. 245); "It's annoying that LCC doesn't provide clearer instructions, but if you keep your head and take them one step at a time [i.e. the tables] they're fairly straightforward" (p. 174)). Chapters 1 to 7 present the essential theoretical concepts relating to knowledge organization and to bibliographic classification. The author is adept at making and explaining distinctions: known-item retrieval versus subject retrieval, personal versus public/shared/official classification systems, scientific versus folk classification systems, object versus aspect classification systems, semantic versus syntactic relationships, and so on. Chapters 8 and 9 discuss the practice of classification, through content analysis and subject description. A short discussion of difficult subjects, namely the treatment of unique concepts (persons, places, etc.) as subjects seems a little advanced for a beginners' class.
In Chapter 10, "Controlled indexing languages," Professor Broughton states that a classification scheme is truly a language "since it permits communication and the exchange of information" (p. 89), a Statement with which this reviewer wholly agrees. Chapter 11, however, "Word-based approaches to retrieval," moves us to a different field altogether, offering only a narrow view of the whole world of controlled indexing languages such as thesauri, and presenting disconnected discussions of alphabetical filing, form and structure of subject headings, modern developments in alphabetical subject indexing, etc. Chapters 12 and 13 focus an the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), without even a passing reference to existing subject headings lists in other languages (French RAMEAU, German SWK, etc.). If it is not surprising to see a section on subject headings in a book on classification, the two subjects being taught together in most library schools, the location of this section in the middle of this particular book is more difficult to understand. Chapter 14 brings the reader back to classification, for a discussion of essentials of classification scheme application. The following five chapters present in turn each one of the three major and currently used bibliographic classification schemes, in order of increasing complexity and difficulty of application. The Library of Congress Classification (LCC), the easiest to use, is covered in chapters 15 and 16. The Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) deserves only a one-chapter treatment (Chapter 17), while the functionalities of the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC), which Professor Broughton knows extremely well, are described in chapters 18 and 19. Chapter 20 is a general discussion of faceted classification, on par with the first seven chapters for its theoretical content. Chapter 21, an interesting last chapter on managing classification, addresses down-to-earth matters such as the cost of classification, the need for re-classification, advantages and disadvantages of using print versions or e-versions of classification schemes, choice of classification scheme, general versus special scheme. But although the questions are interesting, the chapter provides only a very general overview of what appropriate answers might be. To facilitate reading and learning, summaries are strategically located at various places in the text, and always before switching to a related subject. Professor Broughton's choice of examples is always interesting, and sometimes even entertaining (see for example "Inside out: A brief history of underwear" (p. 71)). With many examples, however, and particularly those that appear in the five chapters an classification scheme applications, the novice reader would have benefited from more detailed explanations. On page 221, for example, "The history and social influence of the potato" results in this analysis of concepts: Potato - Sociology, and in the UDC class number: 635.21:316. What happened to the "history" aspect? Some examples are not very convincing: in Animals RT Reproduction and Art RT Reproduction (p. 102), the associative relationship is not appropriate as it is used to distinguish homographs and would do nothing to help either the indexer or the user at the retrieval stage.
Essential Classification is also an exercise book. Indeed, it contains a number of practical exercises and activities in every chapter, along with suggested answers. Unfortunately, the answers are too often provided without the justifications and explanations that students would no doubt demand. The author has taken great care to explain all technical terms in her text, but formal definitions are also gathered in an extensive 172-term Glossary; appropriately, these terms appear in bold type the first time they are used in the text. A short, very short, annotated bibliography of standard classification textbooks and of manuals for the use of major classification schemes is provided. A detailed 11-page index completes the set of learning aids which will be useful to an audience of students in their effort to grasp the basic concepts of the theory and the practice of document classification in a traditional environment. Essential Classification is a fine textbook. However, this reviewer deplores the fact that it presents only a very "traditional" view of classification, without much reference to newer environments such as the Internet where classification also manifests itself in various forms. In Essential Classification, books are always used as examples, and we have to take the author's word that traditional classification practices and tools can also be applied to other types of documents and elsewhere than in the traditional library. Vanda Broughton writes, for example, that "Subject headings can't be used for physical arrangement" (p. 101), but this is not entirely true. Subject headings can be used for physical arrangement of vertical files, for example, with each folder bearing a simple or complex heading which is then used for internal organization. And if it is true that subject headings cannot be reproduced an the spine of [physical] books (p. 93), the situation is certainly different an the World Wide Web where subject headings as metadata can be most useful in ordering a collection of hot links. The emphasis is also an the traditional paperbased, rather than an the electronic version of classification schemes, with excellent justifications of course. The reality is, however, that supporting organizations (LC, OCLC, etc.) are now providing great quality services online, and that updates are now available only in an electronic format and not anymore on paper. E-based versions of classification schemes could be safely ignored in a theoretical text, but they have to be described and explained in a textbook published in 2005. One last comment: Professor Broughton tends to use the same term, "classification" to represent the process (as in classification is grouping) and the tool (as in constructing a classification, using a classification, etc.). Even in the Glossary where classification is first well-defined as a process, and classification scheme as "a set of classes ...", the definition of classification scheme continues: "the classification consists of a vocabulary (...) and syntax..." (p. 296-297). Such an ambiguous use of the term classification seems unfortunate and unnecessarily confusing in an otherwise very good basic textbook an categorization of concepts and subjects, document organization and subject representation."

0.013681654 = product of:
  0.09577157 = sum of:
    0.09577157 = weight(_text_:great in 6991) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09577157 = score(doc=6991,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21992016 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.43548337 = fieldWeight in 6991, 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=6991)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Stresses that S.R. Ranganathan was truly a great scholar, who made rich contribution to different aspects of library and information science, but is better known for his work in the field of library classification. discusses his distinctive contributions to classification such as normative principles, 3 plane model of work, freely faceted classification (involving facet analysis and the synthetic principle), postulational approach, fundamental categories and certain notational devices like the sector device, group notation device, emptying digit device and seminal mnemonic device. Regards these as seminal ideas forming the basis of his theory of library classification. Considers 7th ed. of the Colon Classification as the best example of the application of theses ideas

0.0116941 = product of:
  0.040929347 = sum of:
    0.02770021 = weight(_text_:based in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02770021 = score(doc=5562,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.23539014 = fieldWeight in 5562, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5562)
    0.013229139 = product of:
      0.026458278 = sum of:
        0.026458278 = weight(_text_:22 in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026458278 = score(doc=5562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13677022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

For my segment of this program I'd like to focus on some basic qualities of classification schemes. These qualities are critical to our ability to truly organize knowledge for access. As I see it, there are at least five qualities of note. The first one of these properties that I want to talk about is "authoritative." By this I mean standardized, but I mean more than standardized with a built in consensus-building process. A classification scheme constructed by a collaborative, consensus-building process carries the approval, and the authority, of the discipline groups that contribute to it and that it affects... The next property of classification systems is "expandable," living, responsive, with a clear locus of responsibility for its continuous upkeep. The worst thing you can do with a thesaurus, or a classification scheme, is to finish it. You can't ever finish it because it reflects ongoing intellectual activity... The third property is "intuitive." That is, the system has to be approachable, it has to be transparent, or at least capable of being transparent. It has to have an underlying logic that supports the classification scheme but doesn't dominate it... The fourth property is "organized and logical." I advocate very strongly, and agree with Lois Chan, that classification must be based on a rule-based structure, on somebody's world-view of the syndetic structure... The fifth property is "universal" by which I mean the classification scheme needs be useable by any specific system or application, and be available as a language for multiple purposes.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 21(1995) no.2, S.19-22

0.01125125 = product of:
  0.039379373 = sum of:
    0.023504408 = weight(_text_:based in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023504408 = score(doc=2945,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.19973516 = fieldWeight in 2945, 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=2945)
    0.015874967 = product of:
      0.031749934 = sum of:
        0.031749934 = weight(_text_:22 in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031749934 = score(doc=2945,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13677022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2945, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2945)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

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

0.01125125 = product of:
  0.039379373 = sum of:
    0.023504408 = weight(_text_:based in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023504408 = score(doc=4152,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.19973516 = fieldWeight in 4152, 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=4152)
    0.015874967 = product of:
      0.031749934 = sum of:
        0.031749934 = weight(_text_:22 in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031749934 = score(doc=4152,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13677022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4152, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4152)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

This is the fourth in a series of papers on classification based on phenomena instead of disciplines. Together with types, levels and facets that have been discussed in the previous parts, themes and rhemes are further structural components of such a classification. In a statement or in a longer document, a base theme and several particular themes can be identified. Base theme should be cited first in a classmark, followed by particular themes, each with its own facets. In some cases, rhemes can also be expressed, that is new information provided about a theme, converting an abstract statement ("wolves, affected by cervids") into a claim that some thing actually occurs ("wolves are affected by cervids"). In the Integrative Levels Classification rhemes can be expressed by special deictic classes, including those for actual specimens, anaphoras, unknown values, conjunctions and spans, whole universe, anthropocentric favoured classes, and favoured host classes. These features, together with rules for pronounciation, make a classification of phenomena a true language, that may be suitable for many uses.

Date

17. 2.2018 18:22:25

0.007818088 = product of:
  0.05472661 = sum of:
    0.05472661 = weight(_text_:great in 2764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05472661 = score(doc=2764,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21992016 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.24884763 = fieldWeight in 2764, 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=2764)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Prior to the OPAC many institutions devised classifications to suit their special needs. Others expanded or altered general schemes to accommodate specific approaches. A driving force in the creation of these classifications was the Classification Research Group, celebrating its golden jubilee in 2002, whose work created a framework and body of principles that remain valid for the retrieval needs of today. The paper highlights some of these special schemes and highlights the fundamental principles which remain valid. 1. Introduction The distinction between a general and a special classification scheme is made frequently in the textbooks, but is one that it is sometimes difficult to draw. The Library of Congress classification could be described as the special classification par excellence. Normally, however, a special classification is taken to be one that is restricted to a specific subject, and quite often used in one specific context only, either a library or a bibliographic listing or for a specific purpose such as a search engine and it is in this sense that I propose to examine some of these schemes. Today, there is a widespread preference for searching an words as a supplement to the use of a standard system, usually the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC). This is enhanced by the ability to search documents full-text in a computerized environment, a situation that did not exist 20 or 30 years ago. Today's situation is a great improvement in many ways, but it does depend upon the words used by the author and the searcher corresponding, and often presupposes the use of English. In libraries, the use of co-operative services and precatalogued records already provided with classification data has also spelt the demise of the special scheme. In many instances, the survival of a special classification depends upon its creaior and, with the passage of time, this becomes inevitably more precarious.

0.007818088 = product of:
  0.05472661 = sum of:
    0.05472661 = weight(_text_:great in 733) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05472661 = score(doc=733,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.21992016 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.24884763 = fieldWeight in 733, 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=733)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Is this book sociology, anthropology, or taxonomy? Sorting Things Out, by communications theorists Geoffrey C. Bowker and Susan Leigh Star, covers a lot of conceptual ground in its effort to sort out exactly how and why we classify and categorize the things and concepts we encounter day to day. But the analysis doesn't stop there; the authors go on to explore what happens to our thinking as a result of our classifications. With great insight and precise academic language, they pick apart our information systems and language structures that lie deeper than the everyday categories we use. The authors focus first on the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), a widely used scheme used by health professionals worldwide, but also look at other health information systems, racial classifications used by South Africa during apartheid, and more. Though it comes off as a bit too academic at times (by the end of the 20th century, most writers should be able to get the spelling of McDonald's restaurant right), the book has a clever charm that thoughtful readers will surely appreciate. A sly sense of humor sneaks into the writing, giving rise to the chapter title "The Kindness of Strangers," for example. After arguing that categorization is both strongly influenced by and a powerful reinforcer of ideology, it follows that revolutions (political or scientific) must change the way things are sorted in order to throw over the old system. Who knew that such simple, basic elements of thought could have such far-reaching consequences? Whether you ultimately place it with social science, linguistics, or (as the authors fear) fantasy, make sure you put Sorting Things Out in your reading pile.

0.0075008334 = product of:
  0.026252916 = sum of:
    0.015669605 = weight(_text_:based in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015669605 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.13315678 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
    0.010583311 = product of:
      0.021166623 = sum of:
        0.021166623 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021166623 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13677022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2763, 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=2763)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The different points of views an knowledge representation and organization from various research communities reflect underlying philosophies and paradigms in these communities. This paper reviews differences and relations in knowledge representation and organization and generalizes four paradigms-integrative and disintegrative pragmatism and integrative and disintegrative epistemologism. Examples such as classification, XML schemas, and ontologies are compared based an how they specify concepts, build data models, and encode knowledge organization structures. 1. Introduction Knowledge representation (KR) is a term that several research communities use to refer to somewhat different aspects of the same research area. The artificial intelligence (AI) community considers KR as simply "something to do with writing down, in some language or communications medium, descriptions or pictures that correspond in some salient way to the world or a state of the world" (Duce & Ringland, 1988, p. 3). It emphasizes the ways in which knowledge can be encoded in a computer program (Bench-Capon, 1990). For the library and information science (LIS) community, KR is literally the synonym of knowledge organization, i.e., KR is referred to as the process of organizing knowledge into classifications, thesauri, or subject heading lists. KR has another meaning in LIS: it "encompasses every type and method of indexing, abstracting, cataloguing, classification, records management, bibliography and the creation of textual or bibliographic databases for information retrieval" (Anderson, 1996, p. 336). Adding the social dimension to knowledge organization, Hjoerland (1997) states that knowledge is a part of human activities and tied to the division of labor in society, which should be the primary organization of knowledge. Knowledge organization in LIS is secondary or derived, because knowledge is organized in learned institutions and publications. These different points of views an KR suggest that an essential difference in the understanding of KR between both AI and LIS lies in the source of representationwhether KR targets human activities or derivatives (knowledge produced) from human activities. This difference also decides their difference in purpose-in AI KR is mainly computer-application oriented or pragmatic and the result of representation is used to support decisions an human activities, while in LIS KR is conceptually oriented or abstract and the result of representation is used for access to derivatives from human activities.

Date

12. 9.2004 17:22:35

0.006331477 = product of:
  0.044320337 = sum of:
    0.044320337 = weight(_text_:based in 3130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044320337 = score(doc=3130,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.37662423 = fieldWeight in 3130, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3130)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Based on the research on three general classification schemes, this paper discusses issues encountered when expressing classification schemes in SKOS and explores opportunities of resolving major issues using OWL 2 Web Ontology Language.

0.00625684 = product of:
  0.04379788 = sum of:
    0.04379788 = weight(_text_:based in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04379788 = score(doc=789,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.37218451 = fieldWeight in 789, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=789)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Any ontological theory commits us to accept and classify a number of phenomena in a more or less specific way-and vice versa: a classification tends to reveal the theoretical outlook of its creator. Objects and their descriptions and relations are not just "given," but determined by theories. Knowledge is fallible, and consensus is rare. By implication, knowledge organization has to consider different theories/views and their foundations. Bibliographical classifications depend on subject knowledge and on the same theories as corresponding scientific and scholarly classifications. Some classifications are based on logical distinctions, others on empirical examinations, and some on mappings of common ancestors or on establishing functional criteria. To evaluate a classification is to involve oneself in the research which has produced the given classification. Because research is always based more or less on specific epistemological ideals (e.g., empiricism, rationalism, historicism, or pragmatism), the evaluation of classification includes the evaluation of the epistemological foundations of the research on which given classifications have been based. The field of knowledge organization itself is based on different approaches and traditions such as user-based and cognitive views, facet-analytical views, numeric taxonomic approaches, bibliometrics, and domain-analytic approaches. These approaches and traditions are again connected to epistemological views, which have to be considered. Only the domain-analytic view is fully committed to exploring knowledge organization in the light of subject knowledge and substantial scholarly theories.

0.005815833 = product of:
  0.04071083 = sum of:
    0.04071083 = weight(_text_:based in 2045) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04071083 = score(doc=2045,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.34595144 = fieldWeight in 2045, 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=2045)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This paper describes the Postulations Based Approach to Facet Classification as articulated by S. R. Ranganathan for knowledge classification and for the design of a facet scheme of library classification, and the Entity-Relationship Data Modelling and Analysis Approach set by Peter Pin-Sen Chen; both further modified by other experts. Efforts have been made to show the parallelism between the two approaches. It points out that, both the theoretical approaches are concerned with the organisation of knowledge or information, and apply almost similar theoretical principles, concepts, and techniques for the design and development of a framework for the organisation of knowledge, information, or data, in their respective domains. It states that both the approaches are complementary and supplementary to each other. The paper also argues that Ranganathan's postulations based approach or analytico-synthetic approach to knowledge classification can be applied for developing efficient data retrieval systems in addition to the data analysis and modelling domain.

0.005540042 = product of:
  0.038780294 = sum of:
    0.038780294 = weight(_text_:based in 5659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038780294 = score(doc=5659,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.3295462 = fieldWeight in 5659, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5659)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

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

0.0047486075 = product of:
  0.03324025 = sum of:
    0.03324025 = weight(_text_:based in 726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03324025 = score(doc=726,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.28246817 = fieldWeight in 726, 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=726)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This paper documents the continuing relevance of facet analysis as a technique for searching and organising WWW based materials. The 2 approaches underlying WWW searching and indexing - word and concept based indexing - are outlined. It is argued that facet analysis as an a posteriori approach to classification using words from the subject field as the concept terms in the classification derived represents an excellent approach to searching and organising the results of WWW searches using either search engines or search directories. Finally it is argued that the underlying philosophy of facet analysis is better suited to the disparate nature of WWW resources and searchers than the assumptions of contemporaray IR research.

0.0047486075 = product of:
  0.03324025 = sum of:
    0.03324025 = weight(_text_:based in 894) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03324025 = score(doc=894,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11767787 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0129938 = idf(docFreq=5906, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03905679 = queryNorm
        0.28246817 = fieldWeight in 894, 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=894)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Several authors emphasize the need for a change in classification theory due to the influence of a dogmatic and monistic ontology supported by an outdated essentialism. These claims tend to focus on the fallibility of knowledge, the need for a pluralistic view, and the theoretical burden of observations. Regardless of the legitimacy of these concerns, there is the risk, when not moderate, to fall into the opposite relativistic extreme. Based on a narrative review of the literature, we aim to reflectively discuss the theoretical foundations that can serve as a basis for a realist position supporting pluralistic ontological classifications. The goal is to show that, against rather conventional solutions, objective scientific-based approaches to natural classifications are presented to be viable, allowing a proper distinction between ontological and taxonomic questions. Supported by critical scientific realism, we consider that such an approach is suitable for the development of ontological Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS). We believe that ontological perspectivism can provide the necessary adaptation to the different granularities of reality.

0.004535705 = product of:
  0.031749934 = sum of:
    0.031749934 = product of:
      0.06349987 = sum of:
        0.06349987 = weight(_text_:22 in 6404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06349987 = score(doc=6404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13677022 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03905679 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00