Search (34 results, page 1 of 2)

0.044312872 = product of:
  0.088625744 = sum of:
    0.088625744 = sum of:
      0.04620442 = weight(_text_:systems in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04620442 = score(doc=780,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.28811008 = fieldWeight in 780, 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=780)
      0.042421322 = weight(_text_:22 in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042421322 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 780, 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=780)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Networked orientated standards for vocabulary publishing and exchange and proposals for terminological services and terminology registries will improve sharing and use of all knowledge organization systems in the networked information environment. This means that documentary classifications may also become more applicable for use outside their original domain of application. The paper summarises some characteristics common to documentary classifications and explains some terminological, functional and implementation aspects. The original purpose behind each classification scheme determines the functions that the vocabulary is designed to facilitate. These functions influence the structure, semantics and syntax, scheme coverage and format in which classification data are published and made available. The author suggests that attention should be paid to the differences between documentary classifications as these may determine their suitability for a certain purpose and may impose different requirements with respect to their use online. As we speak, many classifications are being created for knowledge organization and it may be important to promote expertise from the bibliographic domain with respect to building and using classification systems.

Date

22.12.2007 17:22:31

0.041254148 = product of:
  0.082508296 = sum of:
    0.082508296 = sum of:
      0.047157194 = weight(_text_:systems in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047157194 = score(doc=3483,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.29405114 = fieldWeight in 3483, 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=3483)
      0.0353511 = weight(_text_:22 in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0353511 = score(doc=3483,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3483, 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=3483)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Classification is an activity that transcends time and space and that bridges the divisions between different languages and cultures, including the divisions between academic disciplines. Classificatory activity, however, serves different purposes in different situations. Classifications for infonnation retrieval can be called "professional" classifications and classifications in other fields can be called "naïve" classifications because they are developed by people who have no particular interest in classificatory issues. The general purpose of naïve classification systems is to discover new knowledge. In contrast, the general purpose of information retrieval classifications is to classify pre-existing knowledge. Different classificatory purposes may thus inform systems that are intended to span the cultural specifics of the globalized information society. This paper builds an previous research into the purposes and characteristics of naïve classifications. It describes some of the relationships between the purpose and context of a naive classification, the units of analysis used in it, and the theory that the context and the units of analysis imply.

Pages

S.19-22

0.025030928 = product of:
  0.050061855 = sum of:
    0.050061855 = sum of:
      0.021780973 = weight(_text_:systems in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.021780973 = score(doc=2346,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.1358164 = fieldWeight in 2346, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2346)
      0.028280882 = weight(_text_:22 in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028280882 = score(doc=2346,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = 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)

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

0.0182639 = product of:
  0.0365278 = sum of:
    0.0365278 = product of:
      0.0730556 = sum of:
        0.0730556 = weight(_text_:systems in 1138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0730556 = score(doc=1138,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.45554203 = fieldWeight in 1138, 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=1138)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In a changing information environment, we need to reassess each element of bibliographic control, including classification theories and systems. Every classification system is a theoretical construct imposed an "reality." The classificatory relationships that are assumed to be valuable have generally received less attention than the topics included in the systems. Relationships are functions of both the syntactic and semantic axes of classification systems, and both explicit and implicit relationships are discussed. Examples are drawn from a number of different systems, both bibliographic and non-bibliographic, and the cultural warrant (i. e., the sociocultural context) of classification systems is examined. The part-whole relationship is discussed as an example of a universally valid concept that is treated as a component of the cultural warrant of a classification system.

0.01633573 = product of:
  0.03267146 = sum of:
    0.03267146 = product of:
      0.06534292 = sum of:
        0.06534292 = weight(_text_:systems in 2651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06534292 = score(doc=2651,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.4074492 = fieldWeight in 2651, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2651)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The paper analyses the importance of data presentation and modelling and its role in improving the management, use and exchange of analytico-synthetic classifications in automated systems. Inefficiencies, in this respect, hinder the automation of classification systems that offer the possibility of building compound index/search terms. The lack of machine readable data expressing the semantics and structure of a classification vocabulary has negative effects on information management and retrieval, thus restricting the potential of both automated systems and classifications themselves. The authors analysed the data representation structure of three general analytico-synthetic classification systems (BC2-Bliss Bibliographic Classification; BSO-Broad System of Ordering; UDC-Universal Decimal Classification) and put forward some core requirements for classification data representation

0.014140441 = product of:
  0.028280882 = sum of:
    0.028280882 = product of:
      0.056561764 = sum of:
        0.056561764 = weight(_text_:22 in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056561764 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

27. 5.2007 22:19:35

0.013476291 = product of:
  0.026952581 = sum of:
    0.026952581 = product of:
      0.053905163 = sum of:
        0.053905163 = weight(_text_:systems in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053905163 = score(doc=6091,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.33612844 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Arguing that an established technical terminology is crucial to the development of a discipline, and that classification terminology is neither well settled nor widely used by its exponents, this paper provides an explanation of some of the concepts generally accepted by classification theorists. In particular, the elaborate terminology generated by S.R. Ranganathan is examined. Definitions are provided for numerous concepts, including "classification"; "characteristics" and "attributes"; the genus-species relationship; the types of classes (canonical, systems, special, and environmental main classes); the kinds of subject (basic, compound, complex); as well as concepts such as facets, isolates, arrays, and chains. Comparisons between different classification systems, specifically the Dewey Decimal Classification, Colon Classification, and Library of Congress Classification, are also made

0.013476291 = product of:
  0.026952581 = sum of:
    0.026952581 = product of:
      0.053905163 = sum of:
        0.053905163 = weight(_text_:systems in 834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053905163 = score(doc=834,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.33612844 = fieldWeight in 834, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=834)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Examination of the systemic properties and forms of interaction that characterize classification and categorization reveals fundamental syntactic differences between the structure of classification systems and the structure of categorization systems. These distinctions lead to meaningful differences in the contexts within which information can be apprehended and influence the semantic information available to the individual. Structural and semantic differences between classification and categorization are differences that make a difference in the information environment by influencing the functional activities of an information system and by contributing to its constitution as an information environment.

0.013476291 = product of:
  0.026952581 = sum of:
    0.026952581 = product of:
      0.053905163 = sum of:
        0.053905163 = weight(_text_:systems in 2854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053905163 = score(doc=2854,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.33612844 = fieldWeight in 2854, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2854)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article describes research designed to assess the interaction between culture and classification. Mounting evidence in cross-cultural psychology has indicated that culture may affect classification, which is an important dimension to global information systems. Data were obtained through three classification tasks, two of which were adapted from recent studies in cross-cultural psychology. Data were collected from 36 participants, 19 from China and 17 from the United States. The results of this research indicate that Chinese participants appear to be more field dependent, which may be related to a cultural preference for relationships instead of categories.

0.012372886 = product of:
  0.024745772 = sum of:
    0.024745772 = product of:
      0.049491543 = sum of:
        0.049491543 = weight(_text_:22 in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049491543 = score(doc=166,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 166, 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=166)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

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.

0.011551105 = product of:
  0.02310221 = sum of:
    0.02310221 = product of:
      0.04620442 = sum of:
        0.04620442 = weight(_text_:systems in 2508) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04620442 = score(doc=2508,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.28811008 = fieldWeight in 2508, 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=2508)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Hjoerland's typology of the epistemological positions underlying methods for designing KO systems recognizes four basic epistemological positions: empiricism, rationalism, historicism, and pragmatism. Application of this typology to close analysis of Julius Otto Kaiser's theory of systematic indexing shows that his epistemological and methodological positions were hybrid in nature. Kaiser's epistemology was primarily empiricist and pragmatist in nature, whereas his methodology was pragmatist in aim but rationalist in mechanics. Unexpected synergy between the pragmatist and rationalist elements of Kaiser's methodology is evidenced by his stated motivations for the admission of polyhierarchy into syndetic structure. The application of Hjørland's typology to similar analyses of other KO systems may uncover other cases of epistemological-methodological eclecticism and synergy.

0.009625921 = product of:
  0.019251842 = sum of:
    0.019251842 = product of:
      0.038503684 = sum of:
        0.038503684 = weight(_text_:systems in 3023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038503684 = score(doc=3023,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 3023, 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=3023)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Relationships between Knowledge Organization in LIS and Scientific & Scholarly Classifications In her paper "Classification for Information Retrieval and Classification for Knowledge Discovery: Relationships between 'Professional' and 'Naive' Classifications" (KO v30, no.2, 2003), Beghtol outlines how Scholarly activities and research lead to classification systems which subsequently are disseminated in publications which are classified in information retrieval systems, retrieved by the users and again used in Scholarly activities and so on. We think this model is correct and that its point is important. What we are reacting to is the fact that Beghtol describes the Classifications developed by scholars as "naive" while she describes the Classifications developed by librarians and information scientists as "professional." We fear that this unfortunate terminology is rooted in deeply ar chored misjudgments about the relationships between scientific and Scholarly classification an the one side and LIS Classifications an the other. Only a correction of this misjudgment may give us in the field of knowledge organization a Chance to do a job that is not totally disrespected and disregarded by the rest of the intellectual world.

0.009625921 = product of:
  0.019251842 = sum of:
    0.019251842 = product of:
      0.038503684 = sum of:
        0.038503684 = weight(_text_:systems in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038503684 = score(doc=2874,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 2874, 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=2874)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The aim of this article is to estimate the impact of faceted classification and the faceted analytical method on the development of various information retrieval tools over the latter part of the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Design/methodology/approach - The article presents an examination of various subject access tools intended for retrieval of both print and digital materials to determine whether they exhibit features of faceted systems. Some attention is paid to use of the faceted approach as a means of structuring information on commercial web sites. The secondary and research literature is also surveyed for commentary on and evaluation of facet analysis as a basis for the building of vocabulary and conceptual tools. Findings - The study finds that faceted systems are now very common, with a major increase in their use over the last 15 years. Most LIS subject indexing tools (classifications, subject heading lists and thesauri) now demonstrate features of facet analysis to a greater or lesser degree. A faceted approach is frequently taken to the presentation of product information on commercial web sites, and there is an independent strand of theory and documentation related to this application. There is some significant research on semi-automatic indexing and retrieval (query expansion and query formulation) using facet analytical techniques. Originality/value - This article provides an overview of an important conceptual approach to information retrieval, and compares different understandings and applications of this methodology.

0.009529176 = product of:
  0.019058352 = sum of:
    0.019058352 = product of:
      0.038116705 = sum of:
        0.038116705 = weight(_text_:systems in 2640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038116705 = score(doc=2640,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 2640, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2640)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The classification of documents about topics relating to people of mixed race is problematic, partly because of the obscurity of racial categorization in general, and partly because of the limitations and inherent biases of bibliographic classification schemes designed primarily for usage in non-digital environments. Critical race theory is an approach that may prove useful in deterrnining how classification systems such as the Dewey Decimal Classification should most appropriately be stuctured.

0.009529176 = product of:
  0.019058352 = sum of:
    0.019058352 = product of:
      0.038116705 = sum of:
        0.038116705 = weight(_text_:systems in 2672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038116705 = score(doc=2672,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 2672, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2672)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The argument presented here seeks to extend the notion of the classification scheme as a culturally-transmitted tool by emphasizing the cognitive value of the scheme's internal patterns of relationship. lt elaborates an the use of classification as cognitive scaffolding (Jacob, 2001) and amplifies this idea through application of three constructs - constraints, selections and expectations - derived from Luhmann's (1995) theory of social systems.

0.009529176 = product of:
  0.019058352 = sum of:
    0.019058352 = product of:
      0.038116705 = sum of:
        0.038116705 = weight(_text_:systems in 1483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038116705 = score(doc=1483,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 1483, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1483)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Knowledge organization, information systems and other essays: Professor A. Neelameghan Festschrift. Ed. by K.S. Raghavan and K.N. Prasad

0.0094314385 = product of:
  0.018862877 = sum of:
    0.018862877 = product of:
      0.037725754 = sum of:
        0.037725754 = weight(_text_:systems in 2759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037725754 = score(doc=2759,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2352409 = fieldWeight in 2759, 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=2759)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

1. Introduction Theoretical context independent explanations of classification could enhance the universality of classification research and make knowledge about classification available to settings other than traditional libraries. There is a tremendous need for constructing classificatory structures in a range of settings many of which are far removed from the environment in which classification theory and research has been practiced in the last century and a half. The construction of classificatory structures an the Internet, intranets, and in knowledge management systems has received some attention lately. The question examined here is whether it is possible to create a single theory of classification that applies to the range of contexts in which classificatory structures are applied. The object of this paper is to question the assumption that bibliographic classification theory can resemble scientific theories. It is argued that the context of any classification influences the use and understanding of the classification to such a degree that the classification cannot be understood separate from its context. Furthermore, the development from being a novice classifier or classificationist to becoming an expert is explored. lt is assumed scientific theories must relate as much to the activity of novices as to the activity of experts and that scientific theories explain both what it is that novices do and what experts do. It is argued that expertise is achieved not through a correct application of a classification theory but through experiences and adjustment to a particular context and that the activities of novices are quite distinct from the activities of experts in that experts draws an the context of the situation and that novices do not. 2. Theory of Classification Langridge (1976) provides an account of the principles of constructing knowledge organization systems and the theoretical underpinnings of different approaches. He identifies four principles that have guided construction of knowledge organization systems: 1) ideological, 2) social purpose, 3) scientific, and 4) the disciplines. The ideological principle organizes knowledge according to an ideology that the knowledge organization system serves. Langridge gives the examples of "the Christian schemes of the Middle Ages and the Soviet scheme which substitutes for the Bible and Christianity the works of Marx and Lenin and the 'religion' of communism" (Langridge, 1976, p. 4-5).

0.008252509 = product of:
  0.016505018 = sum of:
    0.016505018 = product of:
      0.033010036 = sum of:
        0.033010036 = weight(_text_:systems in 3536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033010036 = score(doc=3536,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.20583579 = fieldWeight in 3536, 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=3536)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

I am writing to correct some of the misconceptions that Hjoerland and Nicolaisen appear to have about my paper in the previous issue of Knowledge Organization. I would like to address aspects of two of these misapprehensions. The first is the faulty interpretation they have given to my use of the term "naïve classification," and the second is the kinds of classification systems that they appear to believe are discussed in my paper as examples of "naïve classifications." First, the term "naïve classification" is directly analogous to the widely-understood and widelyaccepted term "naïve indexing." It is not analogous to the terms to which Hjorland and Nicolaisen compare it (i.e., "naïve physics", "naïve biology"). The term as I have defined it is not pejorative. It does not imply that the scholars who have developed naïve classifications have not given profoundly serious thought to their own scholarly work. My paper distinguishes between classifications for new knowledge developed by scholars in the various disciplines for the purposes of advancing disciplinary knowledge ("naïve classifications") and classifications for previously existing knowledge developed by information professionals for the purposes of creating access points in information retrieval systems ("professional classifications"). This distinction rests primarily an the purpose of the kind of classification system in question and only secondarily an the knowledge base of the scholars who have created it. Hjoerland and Nicolaisen appear to have misunderstood this point, which is made clearly and adequately in the title, in the abstract and throughout the text of my paper.
Second, the paper posits that these different reasons for creating classification systems strongly influence the content and extent of the two kinds of classifications, but not necessarily their structures. By definition, naïve classifications for new knowledge have been developed for discrete areas of disciplinary inquiry in new areas of knowledge. These classifications do not attempt to classify the whole of that disciplinary area. That is, naïve classifications have a explicit purpose that is significantly different from the purpose of the major disciplinary classifications Hjoer-land and Nicolaisen provide as examples of classifications they think I discuss under the rubric of "naïve classifications" (e.g., classifications for the entire field of archaeology, biology, linguistics, music, psychology, etc.). My paper is not concerned with these important classifications for major disciplinary areas. Instead, it is concerned solely and specifically with scholarly classifications for small areas of new knowledge within these major disciplines (e.g., cloth of aresta, double harpsichords, child-rearing practices, anomalous phenomena, etc.). Thus, I have nowhere suggested or implied that the broad disciplinary classifications mentioned by Hjoerland and Nicolaisen are appropriately categorized as "naïve classifications." For example, I have not associated the Periodic System of the Elements with naïve classifications, as Hjoerland and Nicolaisen state that I have done. Indeed, broad classifications of this type fall well outside the definition of naïve classifications set out in my paper. In this case, too, 1 believe that Hjorland and Nicolaisen have misunderstood an important point in my paper. I agree with a number of points made in Hjorland and Nicolaisen's paper. In particular, I agree that researchers in the knowledge organization field should adhere to the highest standards of scholarly and scientific precision. For that reason, I am glad to have had the opportunity to respond to their paper.

0.008167865 = product of:
  0.01633573 = sum of:
    0.01633573 = product of:
      0.03267146 = sum of:
        0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 2045) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03267146 = score(doc=2045,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 2045, 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=2045)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper describes the Postulations Based Approach to Facet Classification as articulated by S. R. Ranganathan for knowledge classification and for the design of a facet scheme of library classification, and the Entity-Relationship Data Modelling and Analysis Approach set by Peter Pin-Sen Chen; both further modified by other experts. Efforts have been made to show the parallelism between the two approaches. It points out that, both the theoretical approaches are concerned with the organisation of knowledge or information, and apply almost similar theoretical principles, concepts, and techniques for the design and development of a framework for the organisation of knowledge, information, or data, in their respective domains. It states that both the approaches are complementary and supplementary to each other. The paper also argues that Ranganathan's postulations based approach or analytico-synthetic approach to knowledge classification can be applied for developing efficient data retrieval systems in addition to the data analysis and modelling domain.