Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Klassifikationstheorie: Elemente / Struktur"
  • × theme_ss:"Internet"
  1. Molholt, P.: Qualities of classification schemes for the Information Superhighway (1995) 0.03
    0.03128866 = product of:
      0.06257732 = sum of:
        0.06257732 = sum of:
          0.027226217 = weight(_text_:systems in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.027226217 = score(doc=5562,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                0.052184064 = queryNorm
              0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 5562, 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=5562)
          0.0353511 = weight(_text_:22 in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.0353511 = score(doc=5562,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.052184064 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5562, 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=5562)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    For my segment of this program I'd like to focus on some basic qualities of classification schemes. These qualities are critical to our ability to truly organize knowledge for access. As I see it, there are at least five qualities of note. The first one of these properties that I want to talk about is "authoritative." By this I mean standardized, but I mean more than standardized with a built in consensus-building process. A classification scheme constructed by a collaborative, consensus-building process carries the approval, and the authority, of the discipline groups that contribute to it and that it affects... The next property of classification systems is "expandable," living, responsive, with a clear locus of responsibility for its continuous upkeep. The worst thing you can do with a thesaurus, or a classification scheme, is to finish it. You can't ever finish it because it reflects ongoing intellectual activity... The third property is "intuitive." That is, the system has to be approachable, it has to be transparent, or at least capable of being transparent. It has to have an underlying logic that supports the classification scheme but doesn't dominate it... The fourth property is "organized and logical." I advocate very strongly, and agree with Lois Chan, that classification must be based on a rule-based structure, on somebody's world-view of the syndetic structure... The fifth property is "universal" by which I mean the classification scheme needs be useable by any specific system or application, and be available as a language for multiple purposes.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 21(1995) no.2, S.19-22
  2. Cordeiro, M.I.; Slavic, A.: Data models for knowledge organization tools : evolution and perspectives (2003) 0.01
    0.011551105 = product of:
      0.02310221 = sum of:
        0.02310221 = product of:
          0.04620442 = sum of:
            0.04620442 = weight(_text_:systems in 2632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04620442 = score(doc=2632,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.28811008 = fieldWeight in 2632, 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=2632)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This paper focuses on the need for knowledge organization (KO) tools, such as library classifications, thesauri and subject heading systems, to be fully disclosed and available in the open network environment. The authors look at the place and value of traditional library knowledge organization tools in relation to the technical environment and expectations of the Semantic Web. Future requirements in this context are explored, stressing the need for KO systems to support semantic interoperability. In order to be fully shareable KO tools need to be reframed and reshaped in terms of conceptual and data models. The authors suggest that some useful approaches to this already exist in methodological and technical developments within the fields of ontology modelling and lexicographic and terminological data interchange.