-
Belayche, C.: ¬A propos de la classification de Dewey (1997)
0.02
0.0187773 = product of:
0.13144109 = sum of:
0.094907634 = weight(_text_:mental in 1171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.094907634 = score(doc=1171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16438161 = queryWeight, product of:
6.532101 = idf(docFreq=174, maxDocs=44218)
0.025165197 = queryNorm
0.57736164 = fieldWeight in 1171, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.532101 = idf(docFreq=174, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1171)
0.036533456 = product of:
0.054800183 = sum of:
0.027523888 = weight(_text_:29 in 1171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027523888 = score(doc=1171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08852329 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.025165197 = queryNorm
0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 1171, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1171)
0.027276294 = weight(_text_:22 in 1171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027276294 = score(doc=1171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08812423 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.025165197 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1171, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1171)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- 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
- Date
- 29. 1.1996 16:50:24
- Source
- Bulletin d'informations de l'Association des Bibliothecaires Francais. 1997, no.175, S.22-23
-
Gnoli, C.; Poli, R.: Levels of reality and levels of representation (2004)
0.02
0.015213685 = product of:
0.10649579 = sum of:
0.07118073 = weight(_text_:mental in 3533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07118073 = score(doc=3533,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16438161 = queryWeight, product of:
6.532101 = idf(docFreq=174, maxDocs=44218)
0.025165197 = queryNorm
0.43302125 = fieldWeight in 3533, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.532101 = idf(docFreq=174, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3533)
0.03531506 = weight(_text_:representation in 3533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03531506 = score(doc=3533,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.025165197 = queryNorm
0.3050057 = fieldWeight in 3533, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3533)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Abstract
- Ontology, in its philosophical meaning, is the discipline investigating the structure of reality. Its findings can be relevant to knowledge organization, and models of knowledge can, in turn, offer relevant ontological suggestions. Several philosophers in time have pointed out that reality is structured into a series of integrative levels, like the physical, the biological, the mental, and the cultural, and that each level plays as a base for the emergence of more complex levels. More detailed theories of levels have been developed by Nicolai Hartmann and James K. Feibleman, and these have been considered as a source for structuring principles in bibliographic classification by both the Classification Research Group (CRG) and Ingetraut Dahlberg. CRG's analysis of levels and of their possible application to a new general classification scheme based an phenomena instead of disciplines, as it was formulated by Derek Austin in 1969, is examined in detail. Both benefits and open problems in applying integrative levels to bibliographic classification are pointed out.
-
Qin, J.: Evolving paradigms of knowledge representation and organization : a comparative study of classification, XML/DTD and ontology (2003)
0.01
0.009547995 = product of:
0.06683596 = sum of:
0.062289912 = weight(_text_:representation in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.062289912 = score(doc=2763,freq=14.0), product of:
0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.025165197 = queryNorm
0.5379795 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
0.004546049 = product of:
0.013638147 = sum of:
0.013638147 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013638147 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08812423 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.025165197 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- 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
- Source
- Challenges in knowledge representation and organization for the 21st century: Integration of knowledge across boundaries. Proceedings of the 7th ISKO International Conference Granada, Spain, July 10-13, 2002. Ed.: M. López-Huertas
-
Donovan, J.M.: Patron expectations about collocation : measuring the difference between the psychologically real and the really real (1991)
0.01
0.00838873 = product of:
0.117442206 = sum of:
0.117442206 = weight(_text_:mental in 510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.117442206 = score(doc=510,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16438161 = queryWeight, product of:
6.532101 = idf(docFreq=174, maxDocs=44218)
0.025165197 = queryNorm
0.7144486 = fieldWeight in 510, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
6.532101 = idf(docFreq=174, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=510)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Abstract
- Library patrons have innate expectations about how documents should be arranged. Useful classification schemes are those which conform to these expectations and are thereby psychologically comfortable. All schemes necessarily deviate from these expectations, but not to the same degree. The greater the divergence from this mental standard with a scheme, the greater the psychological discomfort the patron will experience and the less useful the patron will find it. Using as an example the discipline of anthropology, this article develops a measure of the deviation of library classifications from collocation in mental space
-
Slavic, A.; Cordeiro, M.I.: Core requirements for automation of analytico-synthetic classifications (2004)
0.01
0.008117716 = product of:
0.05682401 = sum of:
0.049943037 = weight(_text_:representation in 2651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049943037 = score(doc=2651,freq=4.0), product of:
0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.025165197 = queryNorm
0.4313432 = fieldWeight in 2651, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2651)
0.006880972 = product of:
0.020642916 = sum of:
0.020642916 = weight(_text_:29 in 2651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020642916 = score(doc=2651,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08852329 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.025165197 = queryNorm
0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 2651, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2651)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Abstract
- The paper analyses the importance of data presentation and modelling and its role in improving the management, use and exchange of analytico-synthetic classifications in automated systems. Inefficiencies, in this respect, hinder the automation of classification systems that offer the possibility of building compound index/search terms. The lack of machine readable data expressing the semantics and structure of a classification vocabulary has negative effects on information management and retrieval, thus restricting the potential of both automated systems and classifications themselves. The authors analysed the data representation structure of three general analytico-synthetic classification systems (BC2-Bliss Bibliographic Classification; BSO-Broad System of Ordering; UDC-Universal Decimal Classification) and put forward some core requirements for classification data representation
- Date
- 29. 8.2004 14:20:40
-
Grimaldi, T.: ¬L'indicizzazione dal punto di vista cognitivo (II) (1996)
0.01
0.00803734 = product of:
0.05626138 = sum of:
0.04708675 = weight(_text_:representation in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04708675 = score(doc=992,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.025165197 = queryNorm
0.40667427 = fieldWeight in 992, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=992)
0.00917463 = product of:
0.027523888 = sum of:
0.027523888 = weight(_text_:29 in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027523888 = score(doc=992,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08852329 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.025165197 = queryNorm
0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 992, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=992)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Abstract
- In relation to indexing, one of the chief implications of cognitive epistemology is the necessity for redefining knowledge representation concepts for information filing and retrieval purposes. Such a redefinition involves abandoning the traditional, hierarchical, closed-structure classification model. Considers the following in detail: a semiotic critique of classification principles; Ranganathan's classification theory; Ranganathan and cognitive epistemology; and some reflections on the DDC and the Bliss Bibliographic Classification
- Date
- 14. 7.1996 13:29:45
-
Poli, R.: Framing information (2003)
0.01
0.00803734 = product of:
0.05626138 = sum of:
0.04708675 = weight(_text_:representation in 2711) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04708675 = score(doc=2711,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.025165197 = queryNorm
0.40667427 = fieldWeight in 2711, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2711)
0.00917463 = product of:
0.027523888 = sum of:
0.027523888 = weight(_text_:29 in 2711) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027523888 = score(doc=2711,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08852329 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.025165197 = queryNorm
0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 2711, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2711)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Date
- 11. 9.2004 15:29:04
- Source
- Challenges in knowledge representation and organization for the 21st century: Integration of knowledge across boundaries. Proceedings of the 7th ISKO International Conference Granada, Spain, July 10-13, 2002. Ed.: M. López-Huertas
-
Gopinath, M.A.: Ranganathan's theory of facet analysis and knowledge representation (1992)
0.01
0.006726679 = product of:
0.0941735 = sum of:
0.0941735 = weight(_text_:representation in 6133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0941735 = score(doc=6133,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.025165197 = queryNorm
0.81334853 = fieldWeight in 6133, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6133)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
-
Cordeiro, M.I.; Slavic, A.: Data models for knowledge organization tools : evolution and perspectives (2003)
0.01
0.006028005 = product of:
0.04219603 = sum of:
0.03531506 = weight(_text_:representation in 2632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03531506 = score(doc=2632,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.025165197 = queryNorm
0.3050057 = fieldWeight in 2632, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2632)
0.006880972 = product of:
0.020642916 = sum of:
0.020642916 = weight(_text_:29 in 2632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020642916 = score(doc=2632,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08852329 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.025165197 = queryNorm
0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 2632, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2632)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Date
- 29. 8.2004 9:26:23
- Source
- Challenges in knowledge representation and organization for the 21st century: Integration of knowledge across boundaries. Proceedings of the 7th ISKO International Conference Granada, Spain, July 10-13, 2002. Ed.: M. López-Huertas
-
Kwasnik, B.H.: ¬The role of classification in knowledge representation (1999)
0.01
0.006019162 = product of:
0.042134132 = sum of:
0.03531506 = weight(_text_:representation in 2464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03531506 = score(doc=2464,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.025165197 = queryNorm
0.3050057 = fieldWeight in 2464, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2464)
0.006819073 = product of:
0.02045722 = sum of:
0.02045722 = weight(_text_:22 in 2464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02045722 = score(doc=2464,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08812423 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.025165197 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2464, 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=2464)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Source
- Library trends. 48(1999) no.1, S.22-47
-
McIlwaine, I.C.: ¬A question of place (2004)
0.01
0.005023338 = product of:
0.035163365 = sum of:
0.02942922 = weight(_text_:representation in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02942922 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.025165197 = queryNorm
0.25417143 = fieldWeight in 2650, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2650)
0.005734144 = product of:
0.017202431 = sum of:
0.017202431 = weight(_text_:29 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017202431 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08852329 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.025165197 = queryNorm
0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 2650, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2650)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Content
- 1. Introduction The representation of place in classification schemes presents a number of problems. This paper examines some of them and presents different ways in which a solution may be sought. Firstly, what is meant by place? The simple answer is a geographical area, large or small. The reality is not so simple. Place, or Topos to Aristotle was more than just an area, it was a state of mind. But even staying an the less philosophical plane, the way in which a place can be expressed is infinitely variable. Toponymy is a well defined field of study, comparable with taxonomy in the biological sciences. It comprehends the proper name by which any geographical entity is known, and part of the world, feature of earth's surface, organic aggregate (reef, forest) an organizational unit (country, borough, diocese), limits of Earth (poles, hemispheres) parts of Earth (oceans, continents), lakes, mountain passes, capital cities or sea parts.
- Date
- 29. 8.2004 14:17:11
-
Dousa, T.M.: Categories and the architectonics of system in Julius Otto Kaiser's method of systematic indexing (2014)
0.01
0.005015969 = product of:
0.03511178 = sum of:
0.02942922 = weight(_text_:representation in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02942922 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.025165197 = queryNorm
0.25417143 = fieldWeight in 1418, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1418)
0.0056825615 = product of:
0.017047685 = sum of:
0.017047685 = weight(_text_:22 in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017047685 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08812423 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.025165197 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1418, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1418)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Abstract
- Categories, or concepts of high generality representing the most basic kinds of entities in the world, have long been understood to be a fundamental element in the construction of knowledge organization systems (KOSs), particularly faceted ones. Commentators on facet analysis have tended to foreground the role of categories in the structuring of controlled vocabularies and the construction of compound index terms, and the implications of this for subject representation and information retrieval. Less attention has been paid to the variety of ways in which categories can shape the overall architectonic framework of a KOS. This case study explores the range of functions that categories took in structuring various aspects of an early analytico-synthetic KOS, Julius Otto Kaiser's method of Systematic Indexing (SI). Within SI, categories not only functioned as mechanisms to partition an index vocabulary into smaller groupings of terms and as elements in the construction of compound index terms but also served as means of defining the units of indexing, or index items, incorporated into an index; determining the organization of card index files and the articulation of the guide card system serving as a navigational aids thereto; and setting structural constraints to the establishment of cross-references between terms. In all these ways, Kaiser's system of categories contributed to the general systematicity of SI.
- Source
- Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik
-
Zhang, J.; Zeng, M.L.: ¬A new similarity measure for subject hierarchical structures (2014)
0.01
0.005015969 = product of:
0.03511178 = sum of:
0.02942922 = weight(_text_:representation in 1778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02942922 = score(doc=1778,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.025165197 = queryNorm
0.25417143 = fieldWeight in 1778, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1778)
0.0056825615 = product of:
0.017047685 = sum of:
0.017047685 = weight(_text_:22 in 1778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017047685 = score(doc=1778,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08812423 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.025165197 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1778, 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=1778)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to introduce a new similarity method to gauge the differences between two subject hierarchical structures. Design/methodology/approach - In the proposed similarity measure, nodes on two hierarchical structures are projected onto a two-dimensional space, respectively, and both structural similarity and subject similarity of nodes are considered in the similarity between the two hierarchical structures. The extent to which the structural similarity impacts on the similarity can be controlled by adjusting a parameter. An experiment was conducted to evaluate soundness of the measure. Eight experts whose research interests were information retrieval and information organization participated in the study. Results from the new measure were compared with results from the experts. Findings - The evaluation shows strong correlations between the results from the new method and the results from the experts. It suggests that the similarity method achieved satisfactory results. Practical implications - Hierarchical structures that are found in subject directories, taxonomies, classification systems, and other classificatory structures play an extremely important role in information organization and information representation. Measuring the similarity between two subject hierarchical structures allows an accurate overarching understanding of the degree to which the two hierarchical structures are similar. Originality/value - Both structural similarity and subject similarity of nodes were considered in the proposed similarity method, and the extent to which the structural similarity impacts on the similarity can be adjusted. In addition, a new evaluation method for a hierarchical structure similarity was presented.
- Date
- 8. 4.2015 16:22:13
-
Tkalac, S.; Mateljan, V.: Neke karakteristike notacijskih shema (1996)
0.00
0.00475648 = product of:
0.06659072 = sum of:
0.06659072 = weight(_text_:representation in 655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06659072 = score(doc=655,freq=4.0), product of:
0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.025165197 = queryNorm
0.57512426 = fieldWeight in 655, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=655)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Abstract
- Presents a short review of fundamental knowledge representation methods: logical, graphical, structured and procedural notational schemes. Special attention is given to notational schemes' classifications and the characteristics on which classifications were done. Knowledge representation is one of the central problems in artificial intelligence, but a complete theory of it does not exist, and it remains a set of methods that are used, with more or less success, in attempts to solve a given problem. The characteristics of knowledge schemes play a significant role
-
Bosch, M.: Ontologies, different reasoning strategies, different logics, different kinds of knowledge representation : working together (2006)
0.00
0.00416192 = product of:
0.058266878 = sum of:
0.058266878 = weight(_text_:representation in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.058266878 = score(doc=166,freq=4.0), product of:
0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.025165197 = queryNorm
0.50323373 = fieldWeight in 166, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=166)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Abstract
- The recent experiences in the building, maintenance and reuse of ontologies has shown that the most efficient approach is the collaborative one. However, communication between collaborators such as IT professionals, librarians, web designers and subject matter experts is difficult and time consuming. This is because there are different reasoning strategies, different logics and different kinds of knowledge representation in the applications of Semantic Web. This article intends to be a reference scheme. It uses concise and simple explanations that can be used in common by specialists of different backgrounds working together in an application of Semantic Web.
-
Green, R.; Panzer, M.: ¬The ontological character of classes in the Dewey Decimal Classification
0.00
0.00416192 = product of:
0.058266878 = sum of:
0.058266878 = weight(_text_:representation in 3530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.058266878 = score(doc=3530,freq=4.0), product of:
0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.025165197 = queryNorm
0.50323373 = fieldWeight in 3530, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3530)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Abstract
- Classes in the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system function as neighborhoods around focal topics in captions and notes. Topical neighborhoods are generated through specialization and instantiation, complex topic synthesis, index terms and mapped headings, hierarchical force, rules for choosing between numbers, development of the DDC over time, and use of the system in classifying resources. Implications of representation using a formal knowledge representation language are explored.
-
Vickery, B.C.: Systematic subject indexing (1985)
0.00
0.0033895585 = product of:
0.047453817 = sum of:
0.047453817 = weight(_text_:mental in 3636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047453817 = score(doc=3636,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16438161 = queryWeight, product of:
6.532101 = idf(docFreq=174, maxDocs=44218)
0.025165197 = queryNorm
0.28868082 = fieldWeight in 3636, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
6.532101 = idf(docFreq=174, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3636)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Abstract
- - adding a relational term ("operator") to identify and join terms; - indicating grammatical case with terms where this would help clarify relationships; and - analyzing elementary terms to reveal fundamental categories where needed. He further added that a standard order for showing relational factors was highly desirable. Eventually, some years later, he was able to suggest such an order. This was accepted by his peers in the Classification Research Group, and utilized by Derek Austin in PRECIS (q.v.). Vickery began where Farradane began - with perception (a sound base according to current cognitive psychology). From this came further recognition of properties, parts, constituents, organs, effects, reactions, operations (physical and mental), added to the original "identity," "difference," "class membership," and "species." By defining categories more carefully, Vickery arrived at six (in addition to space (geographic) and time): - personality, thing, substance (e.g., dog, bicycle, rose) - part (e.g., paw, wheel, leaf) - substance (e.g., copper, water, butter) - action (e.g., scattering) - property (e.g., length, velocity) - operation (e.g., analysis, measurement) Thus, as early as 1953, the foundations were already laid for research that ultimately produced very sophisticated systems, such as PRECIS.
-
Mai, J.-E.: Classification in context : Relativity, reality, and representation (2004)
0.00
0.0033633395 = product of:
0.04708675 = sum of:
0.04708675 = weight(_text_:representation in 3017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04708675 = score(doc=3017,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.025165197 = queryNorm
0.40667427 = fieldWeight in 3017, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3017)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
-
Jacob, E.K.: Augmenting human capabilities : classification as cognitive scaffolding (2003)
0.00
0.0029429218 = product of:
0.041200902 = sum of:
0.041200902 = weight(_text_:representation in 2672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041200902 = score(doc=2672,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.025165197 = queryNorm
0.35583997 = fieldWeight in 2672, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2672)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Source
- Challenges in knowledge representation and organization for the 21st century: Integration of knowledge across boundaries. Proceedings of the 7th ISKO International Conference Granada, Spain, July 10-13, 2002. Ed.: M. López-Huertas
-
Star, S.L.: Grounded classification : grounded theory and faceted classification (1998)
0.00
0.0029429218 = product of:
0.041200902 = sum of:
0.041200902 = weight(_text_:representation in 851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041200902 = score(doc=851,freq=2.0), product of:
0.11578492 = queryWeight, product of:
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.025165197 = queryNorm
0.35583997 = fieldWeight in 851, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=851)
0.071428575 = coord(1/14)
- Content
- This article compares the qualitative method of grounded theory (GT) with Ranganathan's construction of faceted classifications (FC) in library and information science. Both struggle with a core problem-i.e., the representation of vernacular words and processes, empirically discovered, which will, although ethnographically faithful, be powerful beyond the single instance or case study. The article compares Glaser and Strauss's (1967) work with that of Ranganathan(1950).
