-
Connaway, L.S.; Sievert, M.C.: Comparison of three classification systems for information on health insurance (1996)
0.06
0.05908383 = product of:
0.11816766 = sum of:
0.11816766 = sum of:
0.061605897 = weight(_text_:systems in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.061605897 = score(doc=7242,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.38414678 = fieldWeight in 7242, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7242)
0.056561764 = weight(_text_:22 in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056561764 = score(doc=7242,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7242, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7242)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Reports results of a comparative study of 3 classification schemes: LCC, DDC and NLM Classification to determine their effectiveness in classifying materials on health insurance. Examined 2 hypotheses: that there would be no differences in the scatter of the 3 classification schemes; and that there would be overlap between all 3 schemes but no difference in the classes into which the subject was placed. There was subject scatter in all 3 classification schemes and litlle overlap between the 3 systems
- Date
- 22. 4.1997 21:10:19
-
Winske, E.: ¬The development and structure of an urban, regional, and local documents classification scheme (1996)
0.04
0.043804124 = product of:
0.08760825 = sum of:
0.08760825 = sum of:
0.038116705 = weight(_text_:systems in 7241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.038116705 = score(doc=7241,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 7241, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7241)
0.049491543 = weight(_text_:22 in 7241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049491543 = score(doc=7241,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 7241, 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=7241)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Discusses the reasons for the decision, taken at Florida International University Library to develop an in house classification system for their local documents collections. Reviews the structures of existing classification systems, noting their strengths and weaknesses in relation to the development of an in house system and describes the 5 components of the new system; geography, subject categories, extensions for population group and/or function, extensions for type of publication, and title/series designator
- Footnote
- Paper presented at conference on 'Local documents, a new classification scheme' at the Research Caucus of the Florida Library Association Annual Conference, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 22 Apr 95
-
Molholt, P.: Qualities of classification schemes for the Information Superhighway (1995)
0.03
0.03128866 = product of:
0.06257732 = sum of:
0.06257732 = sum of:
0.027226217 = weight(_text_:systems in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027226217 = score(doc=5562,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 5562, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5562)
0.0353511 = weight(_text_:22 in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0353511 = score(doc=5562,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = 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)
- 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
-
Midorikawa, N.: ¬A discussion of the concepts of facets from the viewpoint of the structures of classification systems (1997)
0.02
0.02161014 = product of:
0.04322028 = sum of:
0.04322028 = product of:
0.08644056 = sum of:
0.08644056 = weight(_text_:systems in 1806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08644056 = score(doc=1806,freq=14.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.5390046 = fieldWeight in 1806, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1806)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- 2 concepts of facets have been used in studies of classification systems: one for systems which take hierarchical structure and the other for systems which take multidimensional structure. Both correspond to 'principles of division'. The concepts of facets in multidimensional structure systems is used for addressing a subject from many aspects so should equate to the broadest principle of division in order to grasp a multiplicity of aspects. The concept of facets used in hierarchical systems addresses only the significance of a coherent set of items. This concept is not distinguished from the principle of division and there is no purpose in introducing a concept of facets into hierarchical systems in addition to the principle of division
-
Maniez, J.: ¬Des classifications aux thesaurus : du bon usage des facettes (1999)
0.02
0.021210661 = product of:
0.042421322 = sum of:
0.042421322 = product of:
0.084842645 = sum of:
0.084842645 = weight(_text_:22 in 6404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.084842645 = score(doc=6404,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 1. 8.1996 22:01:00
-
Maniez, J.: ¬Du bon usage des facettes : des classifications aux thésaurus (1999)
0.02
0.021210661 = product of:
0.042421322 = sum of:
0.042421322 = product of:
0.084842645 = sum of:
0.084842645 = weight(_text_:22 in 3773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.084842645 = score(doc=3773,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3773, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3773)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Date
- 1. 8.1996 22:01:00
-
Mirorikawa, N.: Structures of classification systems : hierarchical and multidimensional (1996)
0.02
0.019058352 = product of:
0.038116705 = sum of:
0.038116705 = product of:
0.07623341 = sum of:
0.07623341 = weight(_text_:systems in 6583) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07623341 = score(doc=6583,freq=8.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.47535738 = fieldWeight in 6583, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6583)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Considers classification systems from a structural point of view. Distinguishes between 2 kinds of methods of categorization of classification systems: the first categorized by structure, either hierarchical or multidimensional; and the second by style of expression, either enumerative or sythetic. Identifies 4 leading classification systems according to their structures: DDC, LCC, UDC and Colon Classification. Focuses on DDC referring to 2 interpretatives of its structure, one of which is hierarchical and the other is partially multidimensional. Also relates this to the matter of interpretation of the notation '0', interpreted in one instance as 'generalities', and in another as 'coordination sign'
-
Kochar, R.S.: Library classification systems (1998)
0.02
0.019058352 = product of:
0.038116705 = sum of:
0.038116705 = product of:
0.07623341 = sum of:
0.07623341 = weight(_text_:systems in 931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07623341 = score(doc=931,freq=8.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.47535738 = fieldWeight in 931, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=931)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Library classification traces the origins of the subject and leads an to the latest developments in it. This user-friendly text explains concepts through analogies, diagrams, and tables. The fundamental but important topics an terminology of classification has been uniquely explained. The book deals with the recent trends in the use of computers in cataloguing including on-line systems, artificial intelligence systems etc. With its up-to-date and comprehensive coverage the book will serve as a degree students of Library and Information Science and also prove to be invaluable reference material to professionals and researchers.
- Content
- Contents: Preface. 1. Classification systems. 2. Automatic classification. 3. Knowledge classification. 4. Reflections on library classification. 5. General classification schemes. 6. Hierarchical classification. 7. Faceted classification. B. Present methods and future directions. Index.
-
Curras, E.: Ranganathan's classification theories under the systems science postulates (1992)
0.02
0.018862877 = product of:
0.037725754 = sum of:
0.037725754 = product of:
0.07545151 = sum of:
0.07545151 = weight(_text_:systems in 6993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07545151 = score(doc=6993,freq=6.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.4704818 = fieldWeight in 6993, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6993)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Describes the basic ideas concerning system science and discusses S.R. Ranganathan's ideas about concepts of 'universe of ideas', 'universe of science', 'universe of knowledge' and 'universe of classification'. Examines the principles, canons and postulates underlying Colon Classification. Discusses the structure of Colon Classification. Points out that the ideas of Ranganathan conform to the concept 'unity of science' and concludes that the principles of systems science or systems thinking are helpful in understanding the theory of classification formulated by Ranganathan
-
Zackland, M.; Fontaine, D.: Systematic building of conceptual classification systems with C-KAT (1996)
0.02
0.016505018 = product of:
0.033010036 = sum of:
0.033010036 = product of:
0.06602007 = sum of:
0.06602007 = weight(_text_:systems in 5145) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06602007 = score(doc=5145,freq=6.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.41167158 = fieldWeight in 5145, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5145)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- C-KAT is a method and a tool which supports the design of feature oriented classification systems for knowlegde based systems. It uses a specialized Heuristic Classification conceptual model named 'classification by structural shift' which sees the classification process as the matching of different classifications of the same set of objects or situations organized around different structural principles. To manage the complexity induced by the cross-product, C-KAT supports the use of a leastcommittment strategy which applies in a context of constraint-directed reasoning. Presents this method using an example from the field of industrial fire insurance
-
Beghtol, C.: General classification systems : structural principles for multidisciplinary specification (1998)
0.02
0.01633573 = product of:
0.03267146 = sum of:
0.03267146 = product of:
0.06534292 = sum of:
0.06534292 = weight(_text_:systems in 44) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06534292 = score(doc=44,freq=8.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.4074492 = fieldWeight in 44, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=44)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- In this century, knowledge creation, production, dissemination and use have changed profoundly. Intellectual and physical barriers have been substantially reduced by the rise of multidisciplinarity and by the influence of computerization, particularly by the spread of the World Wide Web (WWW). Bibliographic classification systems need to respond to this situation. Three possible strategic responses are described: 1) adopting an existing system; 2) adapting an existing system; and 3) finding new structural principles for classification systems. Examples of these three responses are given. An extended example of the third option uses the knowledge outline in the Spectrum of Britannica Online to suggest a theory of "viewpoint warrant" that could be used to incorporate differing perspectives into general classification systems
-
Minnigh, L.D.: Chaos in informatie, onderwerpsontsluiting en kennisoverdracht : de rol van de wetenschappelijke bibliotheek (1993)
0.02
0.015401474 = product of:
0.030802948 = sum of:
0.030802948 = product of:
0.061605897 = sum of:
0.061605897 = weight(_text_:systems in 6606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.061605897 = score(doc=6606,freq=4.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.38414678 = fieldWeight in 6606, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6606)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Existing classification systems require constant expansion to accomodate new subject fields, while subject indexing techniques fail to display the relationship of subjects. Relational databases are currently being developed which will guide users through the differing levels of subjects, using the 'cartography of science'. Such developments will enable librarians to play a more interactive role in information retrieval and will have far-reaching consequences on the design of subject-indexing systems
-
Dahlberg, I.: DIN 32705: the German standard on classification systems : a critical appraisal (1992)
0.01
0.014147157 = product of:
0.028294314 = sum of:
0.028294314 = product of:
0.056588627 = sum of:
0.056588627 = weight(_text_:systems in 2669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056588627 = score(doc=2669,freq=6.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.35286134 = fieldWeight in 2669, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2669)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- The German standard on the construction and further development of classification systems is introduced with its background. The contents of its 8 chapters is described. A critical appraisal considers (1) the fact that the standard does not openly deal with the optimal form of CS, viz. faceted CS, but treats them as one possibility among others, although the authors seem to have had this kind in mind when recommending the section on steps of CS development and other sections of the standard; (2) that the standard does not give any recommendation on the computerization of the necessary activities in establishing CS; and (3) that a convergence of CS and thesauri in the form of faceted CS and faceted thesauri has not been taken into consideration. - Concludingly some doubts are raised whether a standard would be the best medium to provide recommendations or guidelines for the construction of such systems. More adequate ways for this should be explored
-
Dahlberg, I.: Classification structure principles : Investigations, experiences, conclusions (1998)
0.01
0.014147157 = product of:
0.028294314 = sum of:
0.028294314 = product of:
0.056588627 = sum of:
0.056588627 = weight(_text_:systems in 47) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056588627 = score(doc=47,freq=6.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.35286134 = fieldWeight in 47, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=47)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- For the purpose of establishing compatibility between the major universal classification systems in use, their structure principles were investigated and crucial points of difficulty for this undertaking were looked for, in order to relate the guiding classes, e.g. of the DDC, UDC, LCC, BC, and CC, to the subject groups of the ICC. With the help of a matrix into whose fields all subject groups of the ICC were inserted, it was not difficult at all to enter the notations of the universal classification systems mentioned. However, differences in terms of level of subdivision were found, as well as differences of occurrences. Most, though not all, of the fields of the ICC matrix could be completely filled with the corresponding notations of the other systems. Through this matrix, a first table of some 81 equivalences was established on which further work regarding the next levels of subject fields can be based
-
Belayche, C.: ¬A propos de la classification de Dewey (1997)
0.01
0.014140441 = product of:
0.028280882 = sum of:
0.028280882 = product of:
0.056561764 = sum of:
0.056561764 = weight(_text_:22 in 1171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056561764 = score(doc=1171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Bulletin d'informations de l'Association des Bibliothecaires Francais. 1997, no.175, S.22-23
-
Hurt, C.D.: Classification and subject analysis : looking to the future at a distance (1997)
0.01
0.010890487 = product of:
0.021780973 = sum of:
0.021780973 = product of:
0.043561947 = sum of:
0.043561947 = weight(_text_:systems in 6929) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043561947 = score(doc=6929,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 6929, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6929)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Classic classification schemes are uni-dimensional, with few exceptions. One of the challenges of distance education and new learning strategies is that the proliferation of course work defies the traditional categorization. The rigidity of most present classification schemes does not mesh well with the burgeoning fluidity of the academic environment. One solution is a return to a largely forgotten area of study - classification theory. Some suggestions for exploration are nonmonotonic logic systems, neural network models, and non-library models.
-
Classification research for knowledge representation and organization : Proc. of the 5th Int. Study Conf. on Classification Research, Toronto, Canada, 24.-28.6.1991 (1992)
0.01
0.01080507 = product of:
0.02161014 = sum of:
0.02161014 = product of:
0.04322028 = sum of:
0.04322028 = weight(_text_:systems in 2072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04322028 = score(doc=2072,freq=14.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.2695023 = fieldWeight in 2072, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2072)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- This volume deals with both theoretical and empirical research in classification and encompasses universal classification systems, special classification systems, thesauri and the place of classification in a broad spectrum of document and information systems. Papers fall into one or three major areas as follows: 1) general principles and policies 2) structure and logic in classification; and empirical investigation; classification in the design of various types of document/information systems. The papers originate from the ISCCR '91 conference and have been selected according to the following criteria: relevance to the conference theme; importance of the topic in the representation and organization of knowledge; quality; and originality in terms of potential contribution to research and new knowledge.
- 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
-
Kwasnik, B.H.: ¬The role of classification in knowledge representation (1999)
0.01
0.010605331 = product of:
0.021210661 = sum of:
0.021210661 = product of:
0.042421322 = sum of:
0.042421322 = weight(_text_:22 in 2464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042421322 = score(doc=2464,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Library trends. 48(1999) no.1, S.22-47
-
Garcia Marco, F.J.; Esteban Navarro, M.A.: On some contributions of the cognitive sciences and epistemology to a theory of classification (1993)
0.01
0.008167865 = product of:
0.01633573 = sum of:
0.01633573 = product of:
0.03267146 = sum of:
0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 5876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03267146 = score(doc=5876,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 5876, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5876)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Intended is first of all a preliminary review of the implications that the new approaches to the theory of classification, mainly from cognitive psychology and epistemology may have for information work and research. As a secondary topic the scientific relations existing among information science, epistemology and the cognitive sciences are discussed. Classification is seen as a central activity in all daily and scientific activities, and, of course, of knowledge organization in information services. There is a mutual implication between classification and conceptualization, as the former moves in a natural way to the latter and the best result elaborated for classification is the concept. Research in concept theory is a need for a theory of classification. In this direction it is of outstanding importance to integrate the achievements of 'natural concept formation theory' (NCFT) as an alternative approach to conceptualization different from the traditional one of logicians and problem solving researchers. In conclusion both approaches are seen as being complementary: the NCFT approach being closer to the user and the logical one being more suitable for experts, including 'expert systems'
-
Spiteri, L.: ¬A simplified model for facet analysis : Ranganathan 101 (1998)
0.01
0.008167865 = product of:
0.01633573 = sum of:
0.01633573 = product of:
0.03267146 = sum of:
0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 3842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03267146 = score(doc=3842,freq=2.0), product of:
0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.052184064 = queryNorm
0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 3842, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3842)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Ranganathan's canons, principles, and postulates can easily confuse readers, especially because he revised and added to them in various editions of his many books. The Classification Research Group, who drew on Ranganathan's work as their basis for classification theory but developed it in their own way, has never clearly organized all their equivalent canons and principles. In this article Spiteri gathers the fundamental rules from both systems and compares and contrasts them. She makes her own clearer set of principles for constructing facets, stating the subject of a document, and designing notation. Spiteri's "simplified model" is clear and understandable, but certainly not simplistic. The model does not include methods for making a faceted system, but will serve as a very useful guide in how to turn initial work into a rigorous classification. Highly recommended
