Search (89 results, page 1 of 5)

0.03666427 = product of:
  0.07332854 = sum of:
    0.028649965 = weight(_text_:science in 3253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028649965 = score(doc=3253,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.23282544 = fieldWeight in 3253, 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=3253)
    0.044678576 = product of:
      0.08935715 = sum of:
        0.08935715 = weight(_text_:history in 3253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08935715 = score(doc=3253,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21731828 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.41118103 = fieldWeight in 3253, 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=3253)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Considering fields as diverse as the history of science, Internet studies, border studies, and coalition politics, the article gives an historical overview of how the knowledge around queer phenomena has been structured, tabulated, and spacialized: the hazards, coercive and productive qualities, as well as queer's paradoxical relationship as both resistant to and reliant on categories, classification, and knowledge structures. In the process, the article also considers the development of Western hierarchical knowledge structures in relation to societal power dynamics, proximity, and space.

0.034997817 = product of:
  0.13999127 = sum of:
    0.13999127 = sum of:
      0.08935715 = weight(_text_:history in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08935715 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21731828 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0467152 = queryNorm
          0.41118103 = fieldWeight in 5083, 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=5083)
      0.05063412 = weight(_text_:22 in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05063412 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16358867 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0467152 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5083, 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=5083)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The concept of faceted classification has its long history and importance in the human civilization. Recently, more and more consumer Web sites adopt the idea of facet analysis to organize and display their products or services. The aim of this article is to review the origin and develpment of faceted classification, as well as its concepts, essence, advantage and limitation. Further, the applications of faceted classification in various domians have been explored.

Date

27. 5.2007 22:19:35

0.02662367 = product of:
  0.05324734 = sum of:
    0.02532323 = weight(_text_:science in 4308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02532323 = score(doc=4308,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.20579056 = fieldWeight in 4308, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4308)
    0.027924111 = product of:
      0.055848222 = sum of:
        0.055848222 = weight(_text_:history in 4308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055848222 = score(doc=4308,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21731828 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.25698814 = fieldWeight in 4308, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4308)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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

0.023610573 = product of:
  0.047221147 = sum of:
    0.025068719 = weight(_text_:science in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025068719 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 3494, 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=3494)
    0.022152426 = product of:
      0.04430485 = sum of:
        0.04430485 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04430485 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16358867 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3494, 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=3494)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Pages

S.22-36

Source

Theorie, Semantik und Organisation von Wissen: Proceedings der 13. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und dem 13. Internationalen Symposium der Informationswissenschaft der Higher Education Association for Information Science (HI) Potsdam (19.-20.03.2013): 'Theory, Information and Organization of Knowledge' / Proceedings der 14. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und Natural Language & Information Systems (NLDB) Passau (16.06.2015): 'Lexical Resources for Knowledge Organization' / Proceedings des Workshops der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) auf der SEMANTICS Leipzig (1.09.2014): 'Knowledge Organization and Semantic Web' / Proceedings des Workshops der Polnischen und Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) Cottbus (29.-30.09.2011): 'Economics of Knowledge Production and Organization'. Hrsg. von W. Babik, H.P. Ohly u. K. Weber

0.017946308 = product of:
  0.035892617 = sum of:
    0.02193056 = weight(_text_:science in 3262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02193056 = score(doc=3262,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.17821985 = fieldWeight in 3262, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3262)
    0.013962056 = product of:
      0.027924111 = sum of:
        0.027924111 = weight(_text_:history in 3262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027924111 = score(doc=3262,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21731828 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.12849407 = fieldWeight in 3262, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3262)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Footnote

Rez. in: KO 36(2009) no.1, S.62-63 (K. La Barre): "This special issue of Axiomathes presents an ambitious dual agenda. It attempts to highlight aspects of facet analysis (as used in LIS) that are shared by cognate approaches in philosophy, psychology, linguistics and computer science. Secondarily, the issue aims to attract others to the study and use of facet analysis. The authors represent a blend of lifetime involvement with facet analysis, such as Vickery, Broughton, Beghtol, and Dahlberg; those with well developed research agendas such as Tudhope, and Priss; and relative newcomers such as Gnoli, Cheti and Paradisi, and Slavic. Omissions are inescapable, but a more balanced issue would have resulted from inclusion of at least one researcher from the Indian school of facet theory. Another valuable addition might have been a reaction to the issue by one of the chief critics of facet analysis. Potentially useful, but absent, is a comprehensive bibliography of resources for those wishing to engage in further study, that now lie scattered throughout the issue. Several of the papers assume relative familiarity with facet analytical concepts and definitions, some of which are contested even within LIS. Gnoli's introduction (p. 127-130) traces the trajectory, extensions and new developments of this analytico- synthetic approach to subject access, while providing a laundry list of cognate approaches that are similar to facet analysis. This brief essay and the article by Priss (p. 243-255) directly addresses this first part of Gnoli's agenda. Priss provides detailed discussion of facet-like structures in computer science (p. 245- 246), and outlines the similarity between Formal Concept Analysis and facets. This comparison is equally fruitful for researchers in computer science and library and information science. By bridging into a discussion of visualization challenges for facet display, further research is also invited. Many of the remaining papers comprehensively detail the intellectual heritage of facet analysis (Beghtol; Broughton, p. 195-198; Dahlberg; Tudhope and Binding, p. 213-215; Vickery). Beghtol's (p. 131-144) examination of the origins of facet theory through the lens of the textbooks written by Ranganathan's mentor W.C.B. Sayers (1881-1960), Manual of Classification (1926, 1944, 1955) and a textbook written by Mills A Modern Outline of Classification (1964), serves to reveal the deep intellectual heritage of the changes in classification theory over time, as well as Ranganathan's own influence on and debt to Sayers.
Several of the papers are clearly written as primers and neatly address the second agenda item: attracting others to the study and use of facet analysis. The most valuable papers are written in clear, approachable language. Vickery's paper (p. 145-160) is a clarion call for faceted classification and facet analysis. The heart of the paper is a primer for central concepts and techniques. Vickery explains the value of using faceted classification in document retrieval. Also provided are potential solutions to thorny interface and display issues with facets. Vickery looks to complementary themes in knowledge organization, such as thesauri and ontologies as potential areas for extending the facet concept. Broughton (p. 193-210) describes a rigorous approach to the application of facet analysis in the creation of a compatible thesaurus from the schedules of the 2nd edition of the Bliss Classification (BC2). This discussion of exemplary faceted thesauri, recent standards work, and difficulties encountered in the project will provide valuable guidance for future research in this area. Slavic (p. 257-271) provides a challenge to make faceted classification come 'alive' through promoting the use of machine-readable formats for use and exchange in applications such as Topic Maps and SKOS (Simple Knowledge Organization Systems), and as supported by the standard BS8723 (2005) Structured Vocabulary for Information Retrieval. She also urges designers of faceted classifications to get involved in standards work. Cheti and Paradisi (p. 223-241) outline a basic approach to converting an existing subject indexing tool, the Nuovo Soggetario, into a faceted thesaurus through the use of facet analysis. This discussion, well grounded in the canonical literature, may well serve as a primer for future efforts. Also useful for those who wish to construct faceted thesauri is the article by Tudhope and Binding (p. 211-222). This contains an outline of basic elements to be found in exemplar faceted thesauri, and a discussion of project FACET (Faceted Access to Cultural heritage Terminology) with algorithmically-based semantic query expansion in a dataset composed of items from the National Museum of Science and Industry indexed with AAT (Art and Architecture Thesaurus). This paper looks to the future hybridization of ontologies and facets through standards developments such as SKOS because of the "lightweight semantics" inherent in facets.
Two of the papers revisit the interaction of facets with the theory of integrative levels, which posits that the organization of the natural world reflects increasingly interdependent complexity. This approach was tested as a basis for the creation of faceted classifications in the 1960s. These contemporary treatments of integrative levels are not discipline-driven as were the early approaches, but instead are ontological and phenomenological in focus. Dahlberg (p. 161-172) outlines the creation of the ICC (Information Coding System) and the application of the Systematifier in the generation of facets and the creation of a fully faceted classification. Gnoli (p. 177-192) proposes the use of fundamental categories as a way to redefine facets and fundamental categories in "more universal and level-independent ways" (p. 192). Given that Axiomathes has a stated focus on "contemporary issues in cognition and ontology" and the following thesis: "that real advances in contemporary science may depend upon a consideration of the origins and intellectual history of ideas at the forefront of current research," this venue seems well suited for the implementation of the stated agenda, to illustrate complementary approaches and to stimulate research. As situated, this special issue may well serve as a bridge to a more interdisciplinary dialogue about facet analysis than has previously been the case."

0.017681584 = product of:
  0.035363168 = sum of:
    0.0186087 = weight(_text_:science in 2492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0186087 = score(doc=2492,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.15122458 = fieldWeight in 2492, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2492)
    0.016754467 = product of:
      0.033508934 = sum of:
        0.033508934 = weight(_text_:history in 2492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033508934 = score(doc=2492,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21731828 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.1541929 = fieldWeight in 2492, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2492)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The periodic table is one of the most potent icons in science. It lies at the core of chemistry and embodies the most fundamental principles of the field. The one definitive text on the development of the periodic table by van Spronsen (1969), has been out of print for a considerable time. The present book provides a successor to van Spronsen, but goes further in giving an evaluation of the extent to which modern physics has, or has not, explained the periodic system. The book is written in a lively style to appeal to experts and interested lay-persons alike. The Periodic Table begins with an overview of the importance of the periodic table and of the elements and it examines the manner in which the term 'element' has been interpreted by chemists and philosophers. The book then turns to a systematic account of the early developments that led to the classification of the elements including the work of Lavoisier, Boyle and Dalton and Cannizzaro. The precursors to the periodic system, like Dobereiner and Gmelin, are discussed. In chapter 3 the discovery of the periodic system by six independent scientists is examined in detail. Two chapters are devoted to the discoveries of Mendeleev, the leading discoverer, including his predictions of new elements and his accommodation of already existing elements. Chapters 6 and 7 consider the impact of physics including the discoveries of radioactivity and isotopy and successive theories of the electron including Bohr's quantum theoretical approach. Chapter 8 discusses the response to the new physical theories by chemists such as Lewis and Bury who were able to draw on detailed chemical knowledge to correct some of the early electronic configurations published by Bohr and others. Chapter 9 provides a critical analysis of the extent to which modern quantum mechanics is, or is not, able to explain the periodic system from first principles. Finally, chapter 10 considers the way that the elements evolved following the Big Bang and in the interior of stars. The book closes with an examination of further chemical aspects including lesser known trends within the periodic system such as the knight's move relationship and secondary periodicity, as well at attempts to explain such trends.

Footnote

Rez. in: KO 35(2008) no.4, S.251-254 (B. Hjoerland): "The book is about the classification of chemical elements known as the periodical system. It is described as "one of the most potent icons in science [.] One sees periodic tables everywhere: in industrial labs, workshops, academic labs, and of course, lecture halls" (p. xiii). Among all taxonomies in all domains, there is probably none more respected and more useful than this one. As Scerri states (p. 25): The periodic table ranks as one of the most fruitful and unifying ideas in the whole of modern science, comparable perhaps with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. Unlike such theories as Newtonian mechanics, the periodic table has not been falsified by developments in modern physics but has evolved while remaining essentially unchanged. After evolving for nearly 150 years through the work of numerous individuals, the periodic table remains at the heart of chemistry. This is mainly because it is of immense practical benefit for making predictions about all manner of chemical and physical properties of the elements and possibilities for bond formation. The periodic system provides the basic criteria for organizing knowledge about all the material stuff in the entire universe. It is thus a model that anybody with interests in knowledge organization (KO) should know. Knowledge about the history, philosophy and status of the periodic system also provides important insight for knowledge organization in general. . . . Scerri's book demonstrates how one of the most important classification systems has evolved and what kinds of conceptualizations and classification criteria are at work in it. It is probably the best book about the best classification system ever constructed. It should belong to any library supporting teaching and research in knowledge organization."

0.017544448 = product of:
  0.07017779 = sum of:
    0.07017779 = weight(_text_:science in 6993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07017779 = score(doc=6993,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.57030356 = fieldWeight in 6993, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6993)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

Source

Journal of library and information science. 17(1992) no.1, S.45-65

0.015507249 = product of:
  0.062028997 = sum of:
    0.062028997 = weight(_text_:science in 8349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.062028997 = score(doc=8349,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.5040819 = fieldWeight in 8349, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=8349)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Reviews the basic concepts associated with categorization and classification in order to examine the cognitive psychology and library science perspectives toward these processes, to discover if a theoretical affinity exists and to discuss potential applications of cognitive categorization theory to the field of library science

0.015193939 = product of:
  0.060775757 = sum of:
    0.060775757 = weight(_text_:science in 672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060775757 = score(doc=672,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.49389738 = fieldWeight in 672, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=672)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Imprint

Bangalore : Sarada Ranganathan Endowment for Library Science

Series

Ranganathan series in library science; 20

0.014324983 = product of:
  0.05729993 = sum of:
    0.05729993 = weight(_text_:science in 1988) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05729993 = score(doc=1988,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.4656509 = fieldWeight in 1988, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1988)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information science. Vol.5

0.013491756 = product of:
  0.026983513 = sum of:
    0.014324983 = weight(_text_:science in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014324983 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.11641272 = fieldWeight in 2763, 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=2763)
    0.01265853 = product of:
      0.02531706 = sum of:
        0.02531706 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02531706 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16358867 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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

0.013491756 = product of:
  0.026983513 = sum of:
    0.014324983 = weight(_text_:science in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014324983 = score(doc=2346,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.11641272 = fieldWeight in 2346, 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=2346)
    0.01265853 = product of:
      0.02531706 = sum of:
        0.02531706 = weight(_text_:22 in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02531706 = score(doc=2346,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16358867 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2346, 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=2346)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose - Potential and benefits of classification schemes and thesauri in building organizational taxonomies cannot be fully utilized by organizations. Empirical data of building an organizational taxonomy by the top-down approach of using classification schemes and thesauri appear to be lacking. The paper seeks to make a contribution in this regard. Design/methodology/approach - A case study of building an organizational taxonomy was conducted in the information studies domain for the Division of Information Studies at Nanyang Technology University, Singapore. The taxonomy was built by using the Dewey Decimal Classification, the Information Science Taxonomy, two information systems taxonomies, and three thesauri (ASIS&T, LISA, and ERIC). Findings - Classification schemes and thesauri were found to be helpful in creating the structure and categories related to the subject facet of the taxonomy, but organizational community sources had to be consulted and several methods had to be employed. The organizational activities and stakeholders' needs had to be identified to determine the objectives, facets, and the subject coverage of the taxonomy. Main categories were determined by identifying the stakeholders' interests and consulting organizational community sources and domain taxonomies. Category terms were selected from terminologies of classification schemes, domain taxonomies, and thesauri against the stakeholders' interests. Hierarchical structures of the main categories were constructed in line with the stakeholders' perspectives and the navigational role taking advantage of structures/term relationships from classification schemes and thesauri. Categories were determined in line with the concepts and the hierarchical levels. Format of categories were uniformed according to a commonly used standard. The consistency principle was employed to make the taxonomy structure and categories neater. Validation of the draft taxonomy through consultations with the stakeholders further refined the taxonomy. Originality/value - No similar study could be traced in the literature. The steps and methods used in the taxonomy development, and the information studies taxonomy itself, will be helpful for library and information schools and other similar organizations in their effort to develop taxonomies for organizing content and aiding navigation on organizational sites.

Date

7.11.2008 15:22:04

0.0125343595 = product of:
  0.050137438 = sum of:
    0.050137438 = weight(_text_:science in 1781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050137438 = score(doc=1781,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.40744454 = fieldWeight in 1781, 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=1781)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of information science. 3(1981), S.191-195

0.0125343595 = product of:
  0.050137438 = sum of:
    0.050137438 = weight(_text_:science in 3004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050137438 = score(doc=3004,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.40744454 = fieldWeight in 3004, 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=3004)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.0125343595 = product of:
  0.050137438 = sum of:
    0.050137438 = weight(_text_:science in 6152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050137438 = score(doc=6152,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.40744454 = fieldWeight in 6152, 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=6152)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Library science with a slant to documentation and information studies. 36(1999) no.2, S.73-77

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.

0.011169644 = product of:
  0.044678576 = sum of:
    0.044678576 = product of:
      0.08935715 = sum of:
        0.08935715 = weight(_text_:history in 1650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08935715 = score(doc=1650,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21731828 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.41118103 = fieldWeight in 1650, 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=1650)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Neither in theory nor in practice does contemporary classification ignore temporal sequence in the sense of history. But it is regarded in a rather static way, as if classification could be reduced to some unique landscape to be viewed by the classifier as from a balloon. ...

0.011169644 = product of:
  0.044678576 = sum of:
    0.044678576 = product of:
      0.08935715 = sum of:
        0.08935715 = weight(_text_:history in 5099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08935715 = score(doc=5099,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21731828 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0467152 = queryNorm
            0.41118103 = fieldWeight in 5099, 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=5099)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to define what is meant by facet analysis, and to review briefly the history of facet analysis within the context of other types of subject analysis in libraries and within the context of information retrieval research

0.010743736 = product of:
  0.042974945 = sum of:
    0.042974945 = weight(_text_:science in 2943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042974945 = score(doc=2943,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.34923816 = fieldWeight in 2943, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2943)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Library science with a slant to documentation. 13(1976) no.2, S.56-66

0.0101292925 = product of:
  0.04051717 = sum of:
    0.04051717 = weight(_text_:science in 5559) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04051717 = score(doc=5559,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12305341 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0467152 = queryNorm
        0.3292649 = fieldWeight in 5559, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5559)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Discusses classification as a central resource of human informational activity and as a central aspect of research for many sciences. Argues that thinking about the background of classification can help improve, or at least clarify, the practical tasks of documentary workers and librarians. Discusses the relationship and gaps between cognitive science and information science, and considers the contributions of epistemology and cognitive psychology; in particular, focuses on the role of the latter in the development of an integrative theory of classification