Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

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

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

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
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
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?

Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

Themes