Search (15 results, page 1 of 1)

0.03666427 = product of:
  0.07332854 = sum of:
    0.028649965 = weight(_text_:science in 584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028649965 = score(doc=584,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 584, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=584)
    0.044678576 = product of:
      0.08935715 = sum of:
        0.08935715 = weight(_text_:history in 584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08935715 = score(doc=584,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21731828 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.41118103 = fieldWeight in 584, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=584)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The issue of free-text versus controlled vocabulary is examined in this article. The history of the issue, which is seen as beginning with the debate over title term indexing in the last century, is reviewed and the attention is turned to questions which have not been satisfactorily addressed by previous research. The point is made that these questions need to be answered if we are to design retrieval tools, such as thesauri, upon a national basis

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 37(1986) no.5, S.331-340

0.020258585 = product of:
  0.08103434 = sum of:
    0.08103434 = weight(_text_:science in 289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08103434 = score(doc=289,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.6585298 = fieldWeight in 289, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=289)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 16(1981), S.291-317

0.0125343595 = product of:
  0.050137438 = sum of:
    0.050137438 = weight(_text_:science in 5434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050137438 = score(doc=5434,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.40744454 = fieldWeight in 5434, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=5434)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Series

Library and information science

0.0125343595 = product of:
  0.050137438 = sum of:
    0.050137438 = weight(_text_:science in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050137438 = score(doc=1271,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.40744454 = fieldWeight in 1271, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1271)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information science. Vol.45, [=Suppl.10]

0.0124058 = product of:
  0.0496232 = sum of:
    0.0496232 = weight(_text_:science in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0496232 = score(doc=2654,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.40326554 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article discusses some of Ranganathan's contributions to the productive, practical and theoretical aspects of classification science. These include: (1) a set of design criteria to guide the designing of schemes for knowledge / subject classification; (2) a conceptual framework for organizing the universe of subjects; and (3) an understanding of the general principles underlying subject disciplines and classificatory languages. It concludes that Ranganathan has contributed significantly to laying the foundations for a science of subject classification.

0.0083772335 = product of:
  0.033508934 = sum of:
    0.033508934 = product of:
      0.06701787 = sum of:
        0.06701787 = weight(_text_:history in 583) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06701787 = score(doc=583,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21731828 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.3083858 = fieldWeight in 583, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=583)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The issue of free-text versus controlled vocabulary is examined in this article. The history of the issue, which is seen as beginning with the debate over title term indexing in the last century, is reviewed and the attention is turned to questions which have not been satisfactorily addressed by previous research. The point is made that these questions need to be answered if we are to design retrieval tools, such as thesauri, upon a national basis

0.0083772335 = product of:
  0.033508934 = sum of:
    0.033508934 = product of:
      0.06701787 = sum of:
        0.06701787 = weight(_text_:history in 5599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06701787 = score(doc=5599,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21731828 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.3083858 = fieldWeight in 5599, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5599)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper looks at changes affecting LCSH over its 100-year history. Adopting a linguistic conceptualization, it frames these changes as relating to the semantics, syntax and pragmatics of the LCSH language. While its category semantics has remained stable over time, the LCSH relational semantics underwent a significant upheaval when a thesaural structure was imposed upon its traditional See and See also structure. Over time the LCSH syntax has become increasingly complex as it has moved from being largely enumerative to in large part synthetic. Until fairly recently the LCSH pragmatics consisted of only one rule, viz, the injunction to assign specific headings. This rule, always controversial, has become even more debated and interpreted with the move to the online environment

0.0083772335 = product of:
  0.033508934 = sum of:
    0.033508934 = product of:
      0.06701787 = sum of:
        0.06701787 = weight(_text_:history in 5602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06701787 = score(doc=5602,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21731828 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.3083858 = fieldWeight in 5602, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5602)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper looks at changes affecting LCSH over its 100-year history. Adopting a linguistic conceptualization, it frames these changes as relating to the semantics, syntax and pragmatics of the LCSH language. While its category semantics has remained stable over time, the LCSH relational semantics underwent a significant upheaval when a thesaural structure was imposed upon its traditional See and See also structure. Over time the LCSH syntax has become increasingly complex as it has moved from being largely enumerative to in large part synthetic. Until fairly recently the LCSH pragmatics consisted of only one rule, viz, the injunction to assign specific headings. This rule, always controversial, has become even more debated and interpreted with the move to the online environment

0.0071624913 = product of:
  0.028649965 = sum of:
    0.028649965 = weight(_text_:science in 762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028649965 = score(doc=762,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 762, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=762)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Library science with a slant to documentation and information studies. 25(1988), S.215-227

0.0071624913 = product of:
  0.028649965 = sum of:
    0.028649965 = weight(_text_:science in 8263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028649965 = score(doc=8263,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 8263, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8263)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 45(1994) no.8, S.600-606

0.0071624913 = product of:
  0.028649965 = sum of:
    0.028649965 = weight(_text_:science in 3569) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028649965 = score(doc=3569,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 3569, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3569)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 41(1990) no.4, S.254-263

0.0071624913 = product of:
  0.028649965 = sum of:
    0.028649965 = weight(_text_:science in 5356) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028649965 = score(doc=5356,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 5356, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5356)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In an interview with Dorothy McGarry, Elaine Svenonius discusses her many-faceted career. Topics include her research interests in subject and descriptive cataloging (Svenonius notes that it "takes some untangling of vocabulary and semantics to see that the traditional bifurcation separating subject and descriptive cataloging is artificial"); her teaching experience, especially her use of Andrew Osborn's "active learning" seminar method; and her views about the development of information science and its relationship to librarianship.

0.0062671797 = product of:
  0.025068719 = sum of:
    0.025068719 = weight(_text_:science in 1890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025068719 = score(doc=1890,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 1890, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1890)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Library science with a slant to documentation. 12(1975), S.33-39

0.0062671797 = product of:
  0.025068719 = sum of:
    0.025068719 = weight(_text_:science in 2379) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025068719 = score(doc=2379,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 2379, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2379)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Imprint

Bangalore : Sarada Ranganathan Endowment for Library Science

0.0035812457 = product of:
  0.014324983 = sum of:
    0.014324983 = weight(_text_:science in 5056) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014324983 = score(doc=5056,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.11641272 = fieldWeight in 5056, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5056)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Rez. in: Knowledge organization 27(2000) no.3, S.173-175 (G. Campbell): "Bibliographic control rests on a rich and intriguing theoretical foundation. All too often, however, students and scholars of information studies pass this foundation over, perhaps because of its fragmentation. Information organization theory has evolved in tandem with practice, and particularly through innumerable policy decisions: its central tenets, therefore, appear in prefaces to manuals and catalogues, in library bulletins, in standards and rule interpretations, and in professional and scholarly conference proceedings. Gathering this theory together is a formidable task, and Svenonius has already made a significant contribution through the two sourcebooks she has coedited: Foundations of Cataloging (1985), and Theory of Subject Analysis (1985). With The Intellectual Foundation of Information Organization, 'Svenonius goes a huge step further: she pulls the fragments of bibliographic control theory together and sets them within a holistic theoretical framework. The result is a significant contribution to LIS scholarship, one which evokes the best of all possible responses: dissatisfied cries for more. Svenonius divides her treatise into two parts containing five chapters each. The first part provides a theoretically-grounded articulation of the objectives, entities, languages and principles of information organization. The field, she argues, rests on three distinct philsophical traditions. Systems philosophy, as developed in library circles by Charles Cutter, gives a holistic and visionary dimension to bibliographic control: a tendency to see individual processes as part of a larger, coherent structure. The philosophy of science, typified in the field by Cyril Cleverdon in the 1950s, emphasizes the need to quantify and generalize, and to subject the tenets of information retrieval to empirical verification. Language philosophy introduces the concept of language rules, and argues that information organization is a "particular kind of language use" (p. 6): an approach which enables us to employ linguistic concepts of semantics, vocabulary and syntax to explain the processes of information organization. Having established this framework, Svenonius goes on to discuss the objectives of bibliographic retrieval systems. Deftly combining the seminal contributions of Cutter, Seymour Lubetzky, the Paris Principles of 1961, and the IFLA objectives of 1997, she produces five central objectives of bibliographic control: locating entitles (finding), identifying entitles (collocating), selecting them (choice), acquiring or gaining access to them (acquisition), and navigating a bibliographic database (navigation) (p. 20)". -