Search (26 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × author_ss:"Dahlberg, I."
  1. De Luca, E.W.; Dahlberg, I.: Including knowledge domains from the ICC into the multilingual lexical linked data cloud (2014) 0.04
    0.038610112 = product of:
      0.077220224 = sum of:
        0.077220224 = sum of:
          0.027226217 = weight(_text_:systems in 1493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.027226217 = score(doc=1493,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                0.052184064 = queryNorm
              0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 1493, 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=1493)
          0.049994007 = weight(_text_:22 in 1493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.049994007 = score(doc=1493,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.052184064 = queryNorm
              0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1493, product of:
                2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                  4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1493)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    A lot of information that is already available on the Web, or retrieved from local information systems and social networks is structured in data silos that are not semantically related. Semantic technologies make it emerge that the use of typed links that directly express their relations are an advantage for every application that can reuse the incorporated knowledge about the data. For this reason, data integration, through reengineering (e.g. triplify), or querying (e.g. D2R) is an important task in order to make information available for everyone. Thus, in order to build a semantic map of the data, we need knowledge about data items itself and the relation between heterogeneous data items. In this paper, we present our work of providing Lexical Linked Data (LLD) through a meta-model that contains all the resources and gives the possibility to retrieve and navigate them from different perspectives. We combine the existing work done on knowledge domains (based on the Information Coding Classification) within the Multilingual Lexical Linked Data Cloud (based on the RDF/OWL EurowordNet and the related integrated lexical resources (MultiWordNet, EuroWordNet, MEMODATA Lexicon, Hamburg Methaphor DB).
    Date
    22. 9.2014 19:01:18
    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
  2. Dahlberg, I.: Normung und Klassifikation (1978) 0.04
    0.0353511 = product of:
      0.0707022 = sum of:
        0.0707022 = product of:
          0.1414044 = sum of:
            0.1414044 = weight(_text_:22 in 1612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.1414044 = score(doc=1612,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.77380234 = fieldWeight in 1612, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=1612)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    DK-Mitteilungen. 22(1978) Nr.5/6, S.13-18
  3. Dahlberg, I.: Kolloquium Einheitsklassifikation (1975) 0.04
    0.0353511 = product of:
      0.0707022 = sum of:
        0.0707022 = product of:
          0.1414044 = sum of:
            0.1414044 = weight(_text_:22 in 1625) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.1414044 = score(doc=1625,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.77380234 = fieldWeight in 1625, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=1625)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    Nachrichten für Dokumentation. 26(1975), S.22-25
  4. Dahlberg, I.: Conceptual definitions for INTERCONCEPT (1981) 0.04
    0.0353511 = product of:
      0.0707022 = sum of:
        0.0707022 = product of:
          0.1414044 = sum of:
            0.1414044 = weight(_text_:22 in 1630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.1414044 = score(doc=1630,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.77380234 = fieldWeight in 1630, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=1630)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    International classification. 8(1981), S.16-22
  5. Dahlberg, I.: ¬Die gegenstandsbezogene, analytische Begriffstheorie und ihre Definitionsarten (1987) 0.02
    0.024745772 = product of:
      0.049491543 = sum of:
        0.049491543 = product of:
          0.09898309 = sum of:
            0.09898309 = weight(_text_:22 in 880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.09898309 = score(doc=880,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 880, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=880)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Pages
    S.9-22
  6. Dahlberg, I.: Library catalogs in the Internet : switching for future subject access (1996) 0.02
    0.0182639 = product of:
      0.0365278 = sum of:
        0.0365278 = product of:
          0.0730556 = sum of:
            0.0730556 = weight(_text_:systems in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0730556 = score(doc=5171,freq=10.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.45554203 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
                  3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                    10.0 = termFreq=10.0
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    A multitude of library catalogs are now being entered into the Internet. Their differing classification and subject headings systems used for subject access call for a switching system, a black box to facilitate the location of subject fields and their subjects in these systems. The principles on which such a switching system must be built in order to provide the necessary insight, surveyability, reproducebility and ease of concept combinability (e.g. in cases of interdisciplinary subjects) are outlined and compared with the BSO which hance once been established by the FID in order to serve a switching purpose. The advantages of using the Information Coding Classification (ICC) as a switching system in the Internet are demonstrated, likewise the methodology needed to establish the necessary correlation between library classification systems (and if possible also subject heading systems and thesauri) and the ICC. Finally some organizational implications for creating a switching for 6 universal systems in use are described
  7. Dahlberg, I.: Grundlagen universaler Wissensordnung : Probleme und Möglichkeiten eines universalen Klassifikationssystems des Wissens (1974) 0.02
    0.01767555 = product of:
      0.0353511 = sum of:
        0.0353511 = product of:
          0.0707022 = sum of:
            0.0707022 = weight(_text_:22 in 127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0707022 = score(doc=127,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 127, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=127)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Footnote
    Zugleich Dissertation Univ. Düsseldorf. - Rez. in: ZfBB. 22(1975) S.53-57 (H.-A. Koch)
  8. Dahlberg, I.: On the theory of the concept (1979) 0.02
    0.01633573 = product of:
      0.03267146 = sum of:
        0.03267146 = product of:
          0.06534292 = sum of:
            0.06534292 = weight(_text_:systems in 1615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06534292 = score(doc=1615,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.4074492 = fieldWeight in 1615, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1615)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    Ordering systems for global information networks. Proc. of the 3rd Int. Study Conf. on Classification Research, Bombay 1975
  9. Dahlberg, I.: ¬The compatibility guidelines : a re-evaluation (1996) 0.02
    0.01633573 = product of:
      0.03267146 = sum of:
        0.03267146 = product of:
          0.06534292 = sum of:
            0.06534292 = weight(_text_:systems in 6047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06534292 = score(doc=6047,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.4074492 = fieldWeight in 6047, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6047)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    Compatibility and integration of order systems: Research Seminar Proceedings of the TIP/ISKO Meeting, Warsaw, 13-15 September 1995
  10. Dahlberg, I.: Classification theory, yesterday and today (1976) 0.02
    0.015401474 = product of:
      0.030802948 = sum of:
        0.030802948 = product of:
          0.061605897 = sum of:
            0.061605897 = weight(_text_:systems in 1618) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.061605897 = score(doc=1618,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.38414678 = fieldWeight in 1618, 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=1618)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Until very recently, classification theory was held to be nothing but an expressed or unconscious knowledge framed in intuitively given reasons for the subdivision and arrangement of any universe. Today, after clarification of the elements of classification systems as well as the basis of concept relationshios it is possible to apply a number of principles in the evaluation of existing systems as well as in the construction of new ones and by this achieving relatively predictable and repeatable results
  11. Dahlberg, I.: Zur Theorie des Begriffs (1974) 0.01
    0.014147157 = product of:
      0.028294314 = sum of:
        0.028294314 = product of:
          0.056588627 = sum of:
            0.056588627 = weight(_text_:systems in 1617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.056588627 = score(doc=1617,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.35286134 = fieldWeight in 1617, 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=1617)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    A concept is regarded as the common element of both classification systems and thesauri. Reality and knowledge are not represented by words or terms but by the meanings "behind" these tokens. A concept of, say, an object, a property of an object, a process, etc. is derived from verbal statements on these as subjects and may therefore be defined as the whole of true and possible predicates that can be collected on a given subject. It is from these predicates that the characteristics of the corresponding concepts can be derived. Common characteristics in different concepts lead to relationsbetween concepts, which relations in turn are factors for the formation of concept systems. Different kinds of relationships as well as different kinds of concepts are distinguished. It is pointed out that an orderly supply of the elements for propositions (informative statements) on new knowledge requires the construction and availability of such concept systems
  12. Dahlberg, I.: ¬The basis of a new universal classification system seen from a philosophy of science point of view (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 2100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.056588627 = score(doc=2100,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.35286134 = fieldWeight in 2100, 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=2100)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The implications of contributions from philosophy of science to classification theory and the construction of a new universal classification system are discussed. Starting from the purposes of universal systems and what has been considered so far to serve as main classes of the six existing major universal systems, the following theories have been treated: Theory of (1) knowledge, (2) knowledge elements and units, (3) systems, (4) the science concept, (5) knowledge fields including criteria for their identification, (6) a logical syntax, (7) an overall structure of object and aspect areas. Concludingly an evaluation was made with special regard to the representability (notation) of such a theory-based universal concept system by computer and in telecommunication. This, as well as the heuristics contained in such a theory-based system facilitate its general applicability
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. Dahlberg, I.: Begriffsarbeit in der Wissensorganisation (2010) 0.01
    0.014140441 = product of:
      0.028280882 = sum of:
        0.028280882 = product of:
          0.056561764 = sum of:
            0.056561764 = weight(_text_:22 in 3726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.056561764 = score(doc=3726,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3726, 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=3726)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly
  16. Dahlberg, I.: Wissensmuster und Musterwissen im Erfassen klassifikatorischer Ganzheiten (1980) 0.01
    0.011789299 = product of:
      0.023578597 = sum of:
        0.023578597 = product of:
          0.047157194 = sum of:
            0.047157194 = weight(_text_:systems in 124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.047157194 = score(doc=124,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.29405114 = fieldWeight in 124, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=124)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Als 'klassifikatorische Ganzheiten' gelten hier Wissensgebiete, bzw. ihre Begriffe. Die Muster, die sich aufgrund der Begriffsrelationen von Wissensgebieten gewinnen lassen, werden sowohl durch formkategoriale als auch durch seinskategoriale Bezüge dieser Begriffe geprägt. Logische und linguistische Untersuchungen haben gezeigt, daß sich Wissensbereiche und Wissensgebiete formkategorial jeweils zu Triaden zusammenordnen lassen und als solche entsprechende Wissensmuster bilden. Ein universales System von 3**3 Triaden von Wissensgebieten wird vorgestellt und erläutert. Es wird dabei gezeigt, wie sich auch in der Interaktion von Wissensgebieten miteinander, z.B. in der Verwendung der Methoden und Verfahren eines Gebietes in einem anderen Gebiet oder der Fundierung eines Gebiets durch ein anderes gewisse Muster abzeichnen, die die Systemstellen eines solchen Systems apriori und auch aposteriori "systematisch" besetzen, ohne die innere Ordnung des Systems und seiner Triaden zu beeinträchtigen. Auf diese Weisen wird durch den Aspekt des internalen Bezugs von Wissensmustern (gegenüber dem o.g. elementalen und totalen) ein Musterwissen gewonnen, das insbesondere auch bei der Benutzung eines solchen Systems von großem Nutzen sein kann, da es das Gedächtnis stützt, die Mustererkennung ermöglicht und dementsprechend die Handhabung bei Einspeicherung und Retrieval von zu ordenbarem Wissen erleichtert.
  17. Dahlberg, I.: ¬A faceted classification of general concepts (2011) 0.01
    0.011789299 = product of:
      0.023578597 = sum of:
        0.023578597 = product of:
          0.047157194 = sum of:
            0.047157194 = weight(_text_:systems in 4824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.047157194 = score(doc=4824,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.29405114 = fieldWeight in 4824, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4824)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    General concepts are all those form-categorial concepts which - attached to a specific concept of a classification system or thesaurus - can help to widen, sometimes even in a syntactical sense, the understanding of a case. In some existing universal classification systems such concepts have been named "auxiliaries" or "common isolates" as in the Colon Classification (CC). However, by such auxiliaries, different kinds of such concepts are listed, e.g. concepts of space and time, concepts of races and languages and concepts of kinds of documents, next to them also concepts of kinds of general activities, properties, persons, and institutions. Such latter kinds form part of the nine aspects ruling the facets in the Information Coding Classification (ICC) through the principle of using a Systematiser for the subdivision of subject groups and fields. Based on this principle and using and extending existing systems of such concepts, e.g. which A. Diemer had presented to the German Thesaurus Committee as well as those found in the UDC, in CC and attached to the Subject Heading System of the German National Library, a faceted classification is proposed for critical assessment, necessary improvement and possible later use in classification systems and thesauri.
  18. Dahlberg, I.: Towards a future for knowledge organization (2006) 0.01
    0.010890487 = product of:
      0.021780973 = sum of:
        0.021780973 = product of:
          0.043561947 = sum of:
            0.043561947 = weight(_text_:systems in 1476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.043561947 = score(doc=1476,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 1476, 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=1476)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    Knowledge organization, information systems and other essays: Professor A. Neelameghan Festschrift. Eds.: K.S. Raghavan u. K.N. Prasad
  19. Luca, E.W. de; Dahlberg, I.: ¬Die Multilingual Lexical Linked Data Cloud : eine mögliche Zugangsoptimierung? (2014) 0.01
    0.010605331 = product of:
      0.021210661 = sum of:
        0.021210661 = product of:
          0.042421322 = sum of:
            0.042421322 = weight(_text_:22 in 1736) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.042421322 = score(doc=1736,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1736, 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=1736)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    22. 9.2014 19:00:13
  20. Dahlberg, I.: ¬The future of classification in libraries and networks : a theoretical point of view (1995) 0.01
    0.009625921 = product of:
      0.019251842 = sum of:
        0.019251842 = product of:
          0.038503684 = sum of:
            0.038503684 = weight(_text_:systems in 5563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.038503684 = score(doc=5563,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 5563, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5563)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Some time ago, some people said classification is dead, we don't need it any more. They probably thought that subject headings could do the job of the necessary subject analysis and shelving of books. However, all of a sudden in 1984 the attitude changed, when an OCLC study of Karen Markey started to show what could be done even with an "outdated system" such as the Dewey Decimal Classification in the computer, once it was visible on a screen to show the helpfulness of a classified library catalogue called an OPAC; classification was brought back into the minds of doubtful librarians and of all those who thought they would not need it any longer. But the problem once phrased: "We are stuck with the two old systems, LCC and DDC" would not find a solution and is still with us today. We know that our systems are outdated but we seem still to be unable to replace them with better ones. What then should one do and advise, knowing that we need something better? Perhaps a new universal ordering system which more adequately represents and mediates the world of our present day knowledge? If we were to develop it from scratch, how would we create it and implement it in such a way that it would be acceptable to the majority of the present intellectual world population?