Search (32 results, page 1 of 2)

0.036927395 = product of:
  0.07385479 = sum of:
    0.07385479 = sum of:
      0.038503684 = weight(_text_:systems in 1417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038503684 = score(doc=1417,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 1417, 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=1417)
      0.0353511 = weight(_text_:22 in 1417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0353511 = score(doc=1417,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1417, 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=1417)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In recent years, Hjørland has developed a typology of basic epistemological approaches to KO that identifies four basic positions - empiricism, rationalism, historicism/hermeneutics, and pragmatism -with which to characterize the epistemological bases and methodological orientation of KOSs. Although scholars of KO have noted that the design of a single KOS may incorporate epistemological-methodological features from more than one of these approaches, studies of concrete examples of epistemologico-methodological eclecticism have been rare. In this paper, we consider the phenomenon of epistemologico-methodological eclecticism in one theoretically significant family of KOSs - namely analytico-synthetic, or faceted, KOSs - by examining two cases - Julius Otto Kaiser's method of Systematic Indexing (SI) and Brian Vickery's method of facet analysis (FA) for document classification. We show that both of these systems combined classical features of rationalism with elements of empiricism and pragmatism and argue that such eclecticism is the norm, rather than the exception, for such KOSs in general.

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

0.03128866 = product of:
  0.06257732 = sum of:
    0.06257732 = sum of:
      0.027226217 = weight(_text_:systems in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027226217 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 1418, 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=1418)
      0.0353511 = weight(_text_:22 in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0353511 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1418, 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=1418)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Categories, or concepts of high generality representing the most basic kinds of entities in the world, have long been understood to be a fundamental element in the construction of knowledge organization systems (KOSs), particularly faceted ones. Commentators on facet analysis have tended to foreground the role of categories in the structuring of controlled vocabularies and the construction of compound index terms, and the implications of this for subject representation and information retrieval. Less attention has been paid to the variety of ways in which categories can shape the overall architectonic framework of a KOS. This case study explores the range of functions that categories took in structuring various aspects of an early analytico-synthetic KOS, Julius Otto Kaiser's method of Systematic Indexing (SI). Within SI, categories not only functioned as mechanisms to partition an index vocabulary into smaller groupings of terms and as elements in the construction of compound index terms but also served as means of defining the units of indexing, or index items, incorporated into an index; determining the organization of card index files and the articulation of the guide card system serving as a navigational aids thereto; and setting structural constraints to the establishment of cross-references between terms. In all these ways, Kaiser's system of categories contributed to the general systematicity of SI.

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

0.019251842 = product of:
  0.038503684 = sum of:
    0.038503684 = product of:
      0.07700737 = sum of:
        0.07700737 = weight(_text_:systems in 2564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07700737 = score(doc=2564,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.48018348 = fieldWeight in 2564, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2564)
      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. Ed. by A. Neelameghan

0.019058352 = product of:
  0.038116705 = sum of:
    0.038116705 = product of:
      0.07623341 = sum of:
        0.07623341 = weight(_text_:systems in 3417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07623341 = score(doc=3417,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.47535738 = fieldWeight in 3417, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3417)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Series

Rutgers series on systems for the intellectual organization of information;4

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)

0.01633573 = product of:
  0.03267146 = sum of:
    0.03267146 = product of:
      0.06534292 = sum of:
        0.06534292 = weight(_text_:systems in 6580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06534292 = score(doc=6580,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.4074492 = fieldWeight in 6580, 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=6580)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Universal classification I: subject analysis and ordering systems. Proc. of the 4th Int. Study Conf. on Classification research, Augsburg, 28.6.-2.7.1982. Ed.: I. Dahlberg

0.014147157 = product of:
  0.028294314 = sum of:
    0.028294314 = product of:
      0.056588627 = sum of:
        0.056588627 = weight(_text_:systems in 1158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056588627 = score(doc=1158,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.35286134 = fieldWeight in 1158, 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=1158)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Acknowledging the importance of classification not only for library and information science but also for the study and mapping of the world phenomena, in this paper we revisit and systematize the main types of classifications and focus on the species of classification mainly drawing on the work of S. R. Ranganathan. We trace the evolution of library classification systems by their structures and modes of design of various shades of classification systems and make a comparative study of enumerative and faceted species of library classifications. The value of this paper is to have a picture of the whole spectrum of existing classifications, which may serve for the study of future developments and constructions of new systems. This paper updates previous works by Comaromi and Ranganathan and is also theoretically inspired by them.

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

0.014140441 = product of:
  0.028280882 = sum of:
    0.028280882 = product of:
      0.056561764 = sum of:
        0.056561764 = weight(_text_:22 in 826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056561764 = score(doc=826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 826, 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=826)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

2. 6.2013 18:33:22

0.012372886 = product of:
  0.024745772 = sum of:
    0.024745772 = product of:
      0.049491543 = sum of:
        0.049491543 = weight(_text_:22 in 4227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049491543 = score(doc=4227,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4227, 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=4227)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Information processing and management. 46(2010) no.1, S.22-43

0.012372886 = product of:
  0.024745772 = sum of:
    0.024745772 = product of:
      0.049491543 = sum of:
        0.049491543 = weight(_text_:22 in 632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049491543 = score(doc=632,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 632, 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=632)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2013 11:31:25

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.

0.011789299 = product of:
  0.023578597 = sum of:
    0.023578597 = product of:
      0.047157194 = sum of:
        0.047157194 = weight(_text_:systems in 1856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047157194 = score(doc=1856,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.29405114 = fieldWeight in 1856, 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=1856)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

During the twentieth century, bibliographic classification theory underwent a structural revolution. The first modern bibliographic classifications were top-down systems that started at the universe of knowledge and subdivided that universe downward to minute subclasses. After the invention of faceted classification by S.R. Ranganathan, the ideal was to build bottom-up classifications that started with the universe of concepts and built upward to larger and larger faceted classes. This ideal has not been achieved, and the two kinds of classification systems are not mutually exclusive. This paper examines the process by which this structural revolution was accomplished by looking at the spread of facet theory after 1924 when Ranganathan attended the School of Librarianship, London, through selected classification textbooks that were published after that date. To this end, the paper examines the role of W.C.B. Sayers as a teacher and author of three editions of The Manual of Classification for Librarians and Bibliographers. Sayers influenced both Ranganathan and the various members of the Classification Research Group (CRG) who were his students. Further, the paper contrasts the methods of evaluating classification systems that arose between Sayers's Canons of Classification in 1915- 1916 and J. Mills's A Modern Outline of Library Classification in 1960 in order to demonstrate the speed with which one kind of classificatory structure was overtaken by another.

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.

0.011789299 = product of:
  0.023578597 = sum of:
    0.023578597 = product of:
      0.047157194 = sum of:
        0.047157194 = weight(_text_:systems in 4142) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047157194 = score(doc=4142,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.29405114 = fieldWeight in 4142, 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=4142)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Literature on the systematifier is remarkably limited in knowledge organization. Dahlberg created the procedure in the seventies as a guide for the construction of classification systems and showed its applicability in systems she developed. According to her initial conception, all disciplines should be structured in the following sequence: Foundations and theories-Subjects of study-Methods-Influences-Applications-Environment. The nature of the procedure is determined in this study and the concept is situated in relation with the domain analysis methodologies. As a tool for the organization of the map of a certain domain, it is associated with a rationalist perspective and the top-down design of systems construction. It would require a reassessment of its scope in order to ensure its applicability to multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary domains. Among other conclusions, it is highlighted that the greatest potential of the systematifier is given by the fact that-as a methodological device-it can act as: i)an analyzer of a subject area; ii)an organizer of its main terms; and, iii)an identifier of links, bridges and intersection points with other knowledge areas.

0.011551105 = product of:
  0.02310221 = sum of:
    0.02310221 = product of:
      0.04620442 = sum of:
        0.04620442 = weight(_text_:systems in 842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04620442 = score(doc=842,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.28811008 = fieldWeight in 842, 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=842)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Common categories (often termed as Common Subdivisions) have been an integral part of all Library Classification Systems. The number of common categories, applicable to all classes of subjects stood at Seven (7) tables of common subdivisions and among these Time and Space categories manifest both as common and special categories. Common categories in Library classification was extensively examined by de Grolier, and Ranganathan has also suggested there is scope for comparative study. Time is also treated in dissimilar manner in different classification systems. The paper presents some unified approaches to space and time categories and in this context seeks their epistemological basis.

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

0.010890487 = product of:
  0.021780973 = sum of:
    0.021780973 = product of:
      0.043561947 = sum of:
        0.043561947 = weight(_text_:systems in 3773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043561947 = score(doc=3773,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 3773, 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=3773)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Faceted analytical theory is a widely accepted approach for constructing modern classification schemes and other controlled vocabularies. While the advantages of faceted approach are broadly accepted and understood the actual implementation is coupled with many challenges when it comes to data modelling, management and retrieval. UDC Seminar 2017 revisits faceted analytical theory as one of the most influential methodologies in the development of knowledge organization systems.

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?

0.009625921 = product of:
  0.019251842 = sum of:
    0.019251842 = product of:
      0.038503684 = sum of:
        0.038503684 = weight(_text_:systems in 1854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038503684 = score(doc=1854,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 1854, 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=1854)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Introduction into the structure, contents and specifications (especially the Systematifier) of the Information Coding Classification, developed in the seventies and used in many ways by the author and a few others following its publication in 1982. Its theoretical basis is explained consisting in (1) the Integrative Level Theory, following an evolutionary approach of ontical areas, and integrating also on each level the aspects contained in the sequence of the levels, (2) the distinction between categories of form and categories of being, (3) the application of a feature of Systems Theory (namely the element position plan) and (4) the inclusion of a concept theory, distinguishing four kinds of relationships, originated by the kinds of characteristics (which are the elements of concepts to be derived from the statements on the properties of referents of concepts). Its special Subject Groups on each of its nine levels are outlined and the combinatory facilities at certain positions of the Systematifier are shown. Further elaboration and use have been suggested, be it only as a switching language between the six existing universal classification systems at present in use internationally.