Search (24 results, page 1 of 2)

0.014147157 = product of:
  0.028294314 = sum of:
    0.028294314 = product of:
      0.056588627 = sum of:
        0.056588627 = weight(_text_:systems in 3524) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056588627 = score(doc=3524,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.35286134 = fieldWeight in 3524, 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=3524)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Three major principles in the structure of knowledge organization systems are identified and discussed: hierarchical trees of types, sets of facets conforming to general categories, and series of levels of reality. Each principle can be present at various degrees in different systems. The three principles can interact between them in various ways, depending on priority choices in system construction. Examples are reviewed of different priority options adopted in classifications and thesauri, both special and general, and their effects are critically examined. It is found that levels of reality, although less often explicitly acknowledged than other principles, contribute an important tool for knowledge organization.

Source

Paradigms and conceptual systems in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Eleventh International ISKO Conference, 23-26 February 2010 Rome, Italy. Edited by Claudio Gnoli and Fulvio Mazzocchi

0.014147157 = product of:
  0.028294314 = sum of:
    0.028294314 = product of:
      0.056588627 = sum of:
        0.056588627 = weight(_text_:systems in 4650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056588627 = score(doc=4650,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.35286134 = fieldWeight in 4650, 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=4650)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Notations are systems of symbols that can be combined according to syntactical rules to represent meanings in a specialized domain. In knowledge organization, they are systems of numerals, letters and punctuation marks associated to a concept that mechanically produce helpful sequences of them for arranging books on shelves, browsing subjects in directories and displaying items in catalogues. Most bibliographic classification systems, like Dewey Decimal Classification, use a positional notation allowing for expression of increasingly specific subjects by additional digits. However, some notations like that of Bliss Bibliographic Classification are purely ordinal and do not reflect the hierarchical degree of a subject. Notations can also be expressive of the syntactical structure of compound subjects (common auxiliaries, facets etc.) in various ways. In the digital media, notation can be recorded and managed in databases and exploited to provide appropriate search and display functionalities.

0.012175934 = product of:
  0.024351869 = sum of:
    0.024351869 = product of:
      0.048703738 = sum of:
        0.048703738 = weight(_text_:systems in 2659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048703738 = score(doc=2659,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.3036947 = fieldWeight in 2659, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2659)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The field of knowledge organization (KO) can be described as composed of the four distinct but connected layers of theory, systems, representation, and application. This paper focuses on the relations between KO theory and KO systems. It is acknowledged how the structure of KO systems is the product of a mixture of ontological, epistemological, and pragmatical factors. However, different systems give different priorities to each factor. A more ontologically-oriented approach, though not offering quick solutions for any particular group of users, will produce systems of wide and long-lasting application as they are based on general, shareable principles. I take the case of the ontological theory of integrative levels, which has been considered as a useful source for general classifications for several decades, and is currently implemented in the Integrative Levels Classification system. The theory produces a sequence of main classes modelling a natural order between phenomena. This order has interesting effects also on other features of the system, like the citation order of concepts within compounds. As it has been shown by facet analytical theory, it is useful that citation order follow a principle of inversion, as compared to the order of the same concepts in the schedules. In the light of integrative levels theory, this principle also acquires an ontological meaning: phenomena of lower level should be cited first, as most often they act as specifications of higher-level ones. This ontological principle should be complemented by consideration of the epistemological treatment of phenomena: in case a lower-level phenomenon is the main theme, it can be promoted to the leading position in the compound subject heading. The integration of these principles is believed to produce optimal results in the ordering of knowledge contents.

0.011789299 = product of:
  0.023578597 = sum of:
    0.023578597 = product of:
      0.047157194 = sum of:
        0.047157194 = weight(_text_:systems in 1092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047157194 = score(doc=1092,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.29405114 = fieldWeight in 1092, 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=1092)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Bericht über: Levels of Reality, Seminar, Bolzano (Bozen) Italy, 26-28 September 2007: Ontologies, the knowledge organization systems now widely used in knowledge management applications, take their name from a branch of philosophy. Philosophical ontology deals with the kinds and the properties of what exists, and with how they can be described by categories like entity, attribute, or process. Readers familiar with facet analysis will notice some analogy with the "fundamental categories" of faceted classifications, and this resemblance is not accidental. Indeed, knowledge organization systems use conceptual structures that can be variously reconnected with the categories of ontology. Though having more practical purposes, the ontologies and classifications of information science can benefit of those of philosophy.
Darin: "However, John Sowa (Vivomind, USA) argued in his speech that the formalized approach, already undertaken by the pioneering project Cyc now having run for 23 years, is not the best way to analyze complex systems. People don't really use axioms in their cognitive processes (even mathematicians first get an idea intuitively, then work on axioms and proofs only at the moment of writing papers). To map between different ontologies, the Vivomind Analogy Engine throws axioms out, and searches instead for analogies in their structures. Analogy is a pragmatic human faculty using a combination of the three logical procedures of deduction, induction, and abduction. Guarino comments that people can communicate without need of axioms as they share a common context, but in order to teach computers how to operate, the requirements are different: he would not trust an airport control system working by analogy."

0.011551105 = product of:
  0.02310221 = sum of:
    0.02310221 = product of:
      0.04620442 = sum of:
        0.04620442 = weight(_text_:systems in 4964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04620442 = score(doc=4964,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.28811008 = fieldWeight in 4964, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4964)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The ontological approach in the development of KOS is an attempt to overcome the limitations of the traditional epistemological approach. Questions raise about the representation and organization of ontologically-oriented KO units, such as BFO universals or ILC phenomena. The study aims to compare the ontological approaches of BFO and ILC using a hermeneutic approach. We found that the differences between the units of the two systems are primarily due to the formal level of abstraction of BFO and the different organizations, namely the grouping of phenomena into ILC classes that represent complex compounds of entities in the BFO approach. In both systems the use of concepts is considered instrumental, although in the ILC they constitute the intersubjective component of the phenomena whereas in BFO they serve to access the entities of reality but are not part of them.

0.010605331 = product of:
  0.021210661 = sum of:
    0.021210661 = product of:
      0.042421322 = sum of:
        0.042421322 = weight(_text_:22 in 1414) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042421322 = score(doc=1414,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1414, 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=1414)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.010605331 = product of:
  0.021210661 = sum of:
    0.021210661 = product of:
      0.042421322 = sum of:
        0.042421322 = weight(_text_:22 in 4144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042421322 = score(doc=4144,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4144, 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=4144)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Beitrag eines Special Issue: ISKO-Italy: 8' Incontro ISKO Italia, Università di Bologna, 22 maggio 2017, Bologna, Italia.

0.010605331 = product of:
  0.021210661 = sum of:
    0.021210661 = product of:
      0.042421322 = sum of:
        0.042421322 = weight(_text_:22 in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042421322 = score(doc=4152,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4152, 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=4152)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

17. 2.2018 18:22:25

0.009625921 = product of:
  0.019251842 = sum of:
    0.019251842 = product of:
      0.038503684 = sum of:
        0.038503684 = weight(_text_:systems in 1095) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038503684 = score(doc=1095,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 1095, 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=1095)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Most existing knowledge organization systems (KOS) are based on disciplines. However, as research is increasingly multidisciplinary, scholars need tools allowing them to explore relations between phenomena throughout the whole spectrum of knowledge. We focus on the dependence relationship, holding between one phenomenon and those at lower integrative levels on which it depends for its existence, like alpinism on mountains, and mountains on rocks. This relationship was first described by D.J. Foskett in the context of CRG's work towards a non-disciplinary scheme. We discuss its possible status and representation in three kinds of KOS: thesauri, classification schemes, and ontologies. In thesaural structures, dependence could be one of the subtypes of associative relationships (RT) which have been wished to enrich their semantic functions. In classification, it could act together with hierarchy as a structuring principle, providing a way of connecting and sorting main classes based on integrative levels. In ontologies, it could be defined as a dependsOn direct slot, expressing the fact that through it a class does not inherit all properties of the other class on which it depends. We argue that providing search interfaces with cross-disciplinary links of this kind can give users more adequate tools to examine the recorded knowledge through creative paths overcoming some limitations of its canonical segmentation into disciplines.

0.0094314385 = product of:
  0.018862877 = sum of:
    0.018862877 = product of:
      0.037725754 = sum of:
        0.037725754 = weight(_text_:systems in 3804) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037725754 = score(doc=3804,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2352409 = fieldWeight in 3804, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3804)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

-Existing classification systems serve interdisciplinary research and teaching poorly. -A novel approach to classification, grounded in the phenomena studied rather than disciplines, would serve interdisciplinary scholarship much better. It would also have advantages for disciplinary scholarship. The productivity of scholarship would thus be increased. -This novel approach is entirely feasible. Various concerns that might be raised can each be addressed. The broad outlines of what a new classification would look like are developed. -This new approach might serve as a complement to or a substitute for existing classification systems. -Domain analysis can and should be employed in the pursuit of a general classification. This will be particularly important with respect to interdisciplinary domains. -Though the impetus for this novel approach comes from interdisciplinarity, it is also better suited to the needs of the Semantic Web, and a digital environment more generally. Though the primary focus of the book is on classification systems, most chapters also address how the analysis could be extended to thesauri and ontologies. The possibility of a universal thesaurus is explored. The classification proposed has many of the advantages sought in ontologies for the Semantic Web. The book is therefore of interest to scholars working in these areas as well.

0.008837775 = product of:
  0.01767555 = sum of:
    0.01767555 = product of:
      0.0353511 = sum of:
        0.0353511 = weight(_text_:22 in 3698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0353511 = score(doc=3698,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3698, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3698)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 7.2010 20:40:08

0.008837775 = product of:
  0.01767555 = sum of:
    0.01767555 = product of:
      0.0353511 = sum of:
        0.0353511 = weight(_text_:22 in 3739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0353511 = score(doc=3739,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3739, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3739)
      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

0.008252509 = product of:
  0.016505018 = sum of:
    0.016505018 = product of:
      0.033010036 = sum of:
        0.033010036 = weight(_text_:systems in 3750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033010036 = score(doc=3750,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.20583579 = fieldWeight in 3750, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3750)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

As an Italian chapter of ISKO has recently been reorganized, I was kindly invited to Write a short report an current KO activities in our country. So, in the following, I will briefly illustrate the local situation of the various kinds of knowledge organization systems, as well as related developments and activities. I am grateful to Paola Capitani, Emanuela Casson, Michele Santoro, and Lorena Zuccolo for providing useful information to be included here.

Content

Terminology and thesauri BNCF is also involved in a working group collecting information an online terminological resources <http://wwwindire.it/websemantico>. The group is headed by Paola Capitani, and has organized several roundtables an terminology in special domains, such as economy, fashion, law, and education. Thesauri are generally poorly known and used in Italy, although there are significant exceptions: among faceted systems we can mention the "Thesauro italiano di sociologia," published in 1999, and the "Thesaurus regionale toscano," as well as specialized an social sciences including a general outline, available both in print (1996) and online <http:// www regione.toscana.it/ius/ns-thesaurus/>. Classification systems The Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) is by far the most widespread classification scheme in Italian libraries. A working group, coordinated by Luigi Crocetti, regularly translates the new editions of DDC manuals, and gives refresher courses an it for librarians. BNCF makes DDC numbers for bibliographical records both of its own catalogue, and of the national bibliography (= Bibliografia nazionale italiana: BNI), which is available for other libraries in a CD-ROM edition. A very large number of public libraries use DDC for their shelfmarks, so that users are accustomed to it. This situation is different from other European countries, e.g., Spain where UDC is widespread."

0.008167865 = product of:
  0.01633573 = sum of:
    0.01633573 = product of:
      0.03267146 = sum of:
        0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03267146 = score(doc=534,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 534, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=534)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Beitrag eines Themenheftes "Knowledge organization systems and services"

0.008167865 = product of:
  0.01633573 = sum of:
    0.01633573 = product of:
      0.03267146 = sum of:
        0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 2134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03267146 = score(doc=2134,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 2134, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2134)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Research can benefit by periodical consideration of its status in a long-term perspective. In knowledge organization (KO), a number of basic questions remain to be addressed in the 21st century. Ten of them are identified and synthetically discussed: (1) Can KO principles be extended to a broader scope, including hypertexts, multimedia, museum objects, and monuments? (2) Can the two basic approaches, ontological and epistemological, be reconciled? (3) Can any ontological foundation of KO be identified? (4) Should disciplines continue to be the structural base of KO? (5) How can viewpoint warrant be respected? (6) How can KO be adapted to local collection needs? (7) How can KO deal with changes in knowledge? (8) How can KO systems represent all the dimensions listed above? (9) How can software and formats be improved to better serve these needs? (10) Who should do KO: information professionals, authors or readers?

0.008167865 = product of:
  0.01633573 = sum of:
    0.01633573 = product of:
      0.03267146 = sum of:
        0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 3102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03267146 = score(doc=3102,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 3102, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3102)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Proceedings of the 15th European Networked Knowledge Organization Systems Workshop (NKOS 2016) co-located with the 20th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Digital Libraries 2016 (TPDL 2016), Hannover, Germany, September 9, 2016. Edi. by Philipp Mayr et al. [http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1676/=urn:nbn:de:0074-1676-5]

0.008167865 = product of:
  0.01633573 = sum of:
    0.01633573 = product of:
      0.03267146 = sum of:
        0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 3177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03267146 = score(doc=3177,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 3177, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3177)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

After making the case that phenomena can be the primary unit of classification (Part 1), some basic principles to group and sort phenomena are considered. Entities can be grouped together on the basis of both their similarity (morphology) and their common origin (phylogeny). The resulting groups will form the classical hierarchical chains of types and subtypes. At every hierarchical degree, phenomena can form ordered sets (arrays), where their sorting can reflect levels of increasing organization, corresponding to an evolutionary order of appearance (emergence). The theory of levels of reality has been investigated by many philosophers and applied to knowledge organization systems by various authors, which are briefly reviewed. At the broadest degree, it allows to identify some major strata of phenomena (forms, matter, life, minds, societies and culture) in turn divided into layers. A list of twenty-six layers is proposed to form the main classes of the Integrative Levels Classification system. A combination of morphology and phylogeny can determine whether a given phenomenon should be a type of an existing level, or a level on its own.

0.008167865 = product of:
  0.01633573 = sum of:
    0.01633573 = product of:
      0.03267146 = sum of:
        0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03267146 = score(doc=452,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 452, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=452)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Faceted knowledge organization systems have sophisticated logical structures, making their representation as linked data a demanding task. The term facet is often used in ambiguous ways: while in thesauri facets only work as semantic categories, in classification schemes they also have syntactic functions. The need to convert the Integrative Levels Classification (ILC) into SKOS stimulated a more general analysis of the different kinds of syntactic facets, as can be represented in terms of RDF properties and their respective domain and range. A nomenclature is proposed, distinguishing between common facets, which can be appended to any class, that is, have an unrestricted domain; and special facets, which are exclusive to some class, that is, have a restricted domain. In both cases, foci can be taken from any other class (unrestricted range: free facets), or only from subclasses of an existing class (parallel facets), or be defined specifically for the present class (bound facets). Examples are given of such cases in ILC and in the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC).

0.008167865 = product of:
  0.01633573 = sum of:
    0.01633573 = product of:
      0.03267146 = sum of:
        0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 712) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03267146 = score(doc=712,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 712, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=712)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In traditional classification, fictional works are indexed only by their form, genre, and language, while their subject content is believed to be irrelevant. However, recent research suggests that this may not be the best approach. We tested indexing of a small sample of selected fictional works by Integrative Levels Classification (ILC2), a freely faceted system based on phenomena instead of disciplines and considered the structure of the resulting classmarks. Issues in the process of subject analysis, such as selection of relevant vs. non-relevant themes and citation order of relevant ones, are identified and discussed. Some phenomena that are covered in scholarly literature can also be identified as relevant themes in fictional literature and expressed in classmarks. This can allow for hybrid search and retrieval systems covering both fiction and nonfiction, which will result in better leveraging of the knowledge contained in fictional works.

0.0068065543 = product of:
  0.013613109 = sum of:
    0.013613109 = product of:
      0.027226217 = sum of:
        0.027226217 = weight(_text_:systems in 661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027226217 = score(doc=661,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 661, 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=661)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Some relevant proposals regarding the future of knowledge organization emerged during the 8th conference of the ISKO Spanish chapter, which took place in the beautiful, lively atmosphere of the town of León, between 18 and 20 of April 2007. These proposals are here labeled as "the Leon manifesto", and can be summarized in the following points: - the current trend towards an increasing interdisciplinarity of knowledge calls for essentially new knowledge organization systems (KOS), based on a substantive revision of the principles underlying the traditional discipline-based KOS; - this innovation is not only desirable, but also feasible, and should be implemented by actually developing some new KOS; instead of disciplines, the basic unity of the new KOS should be phenomena of the real world as it is represented in human knowledge; - the new KOS should allow users to shift from one perspective or viewpoint to another, thus reflecting the multidimensional nature of complex thought. In particular, it should allow them to search independently for particular phenomena, for particular theories about phenomena (and about relations between phenomena), and for particular methods of investigation; - the connections between phenomena, those between phenomena and the theories studying them, and those between phenomena and the methods to investigate them, can be expressed and managed by analytico-synthetic techniques already developed in faceted classification.