Search (88 results, page 2 of 5)

0.019058352 = product of:
  0.038116705 = sum of:
    0.038116705 = product of:
      0.07623341 = sum of:
        0.07623341 = weight(_text_:systems in 6583) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07623341 = score(doc=6583,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.47535738 = fieldWeight in 6583, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6583)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Considers classification systems from a structural point of view. Distinguishes between 2 kinds of methods of categorization of classification systems: the first categorized by structure, either hierarchical or multidimensional; and the second by style of expression, either enumerative or sythetic. Identifies 4 leading classification systems according to their structures: DDC, LCC, UDC and Colon Classification. Focuses on DDC referring to 2 interpretatives of its structure, one of which is hierarchical and the other is partially multidimensional. Also relates this to the matter of interpretation of the notation '0', interpreted in one instance as 'generalities', and in another as 'coordination sign'

0.018862877 = product of:
  0.037725754 = sum of:
    0.037725754 = product of:
      0.07545151 = sum of:
        0.07545151 = weight(_text_:systems in 6993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07545151 = score(doc=6993,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.4704818 = fieldWeight in 6993, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6993)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Describes the basic ideas concerning system science and discusses S.R. Ranganathan's ideas about concepts of 'universe of ideas', 'universe of science', 'universe of knowledge' and 'universe of classification'. Examines the principles, canons and postulates underlying Colon Classification. Discusses the structure of Colon Classification. Points out that the ideas of Ranganathan conform to the concept 'unity of science' and concludes that the principles of systems science or systems thinking are helpful in understanding the theory of classification formulated by Ranganathan

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.

0.016672583 = product of:
  0.033345167 = sum of:
    0.033345167 = product of:
      0.06669033 = sum of:
        0.06669033 = weight(_text_:systems in 3487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06669033 = score(doc=3487,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.41585106 = fieldWeight in 3487, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3487)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper argues that the semantic axis of bibliographic classification systems can be found in the various warrants that have been used to justify the utility of classification systems. Classificationists, theorists, and critics have emphasized the syntactic aspects of classification theories and systems, but a number of semantic warrants can be identified. The evolution of four semantic warrants is traced through the development of twentieth-century classification theory: literary warrant, scientific/philosophical warrant, educational warrant, and cultural warrant. It is concluded that further examination of semantic warrants might make possible a rationalized approach to the creation of classification systems for particular uses. The attention of scholars on faceted schemes and classificatory structures had heretofore pulled our attention to the syntactic aspects (e.g., concept division and citation order), with semantics being considered more or less a question of the terms and their relationships and somewhat taken for granted, or at least construed as a unitary aspect. Attention is on the choice of the classes and their meaning, as well as their connection to the world, and not so much on their syntactic relationship. This notion is developed by providing an historical and conceptual overview of the various kinds of warrant discernible in working with bibliographic systems. In Beghtol's definition, warrant concerns more than just the selection of terms, but rather the mapping of a classification system to the context and uses.

0.016505018 = product of:
  0.033010036 = sum of:
    0.033010036 = product of:
      0.06602007 = sum of:
        0.06602007 = weight(_text_:systems in 5145) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06602007 = score(doc=5145,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.41167158 = fieldWeight in 5145, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5145)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

C-KAT is a method and a tool which supports the design of feature oriented classification systems for knowlegde based systems. It uses a specialized Heuristic Classification conceptual model named 'classification by structural shift' which sees the classification process as the matching of different classifications of the same set of objects or situations organized around different structural principles. To manage the complexity induced by the cross-product, C-KAT supports the use of a leastcommittment strategy which applies in a context of constraint-directed reasoning. Presents this method using an example from the field of industrial fire insurance

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

0.01633573 = product of:
  0.03267146 = sum of:
    0.03267146 = product of:
      0.06534292 = sum of:
        0.06534292 = weight(_text_:systems in 17) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06534292 = score(doc=17,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.4074492 = fieldWeight in 17, 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=17)
      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

0.01633573 = product of:
  0.03267146 = sum of:
    0.03267146 = product of:
      0.06534292 = sum of:
        0.06534292 = weight(_text_:systems in 44) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06534292 = score(doc=44,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.4074492 = fieldWeight in 44, 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=44)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this century, knowledge creation, production, dissemination and use have changed profoundly. Intellectual and physical barriers have been substantially reduced by the rise of multidisciplinarity and by the influence of computerization, particularly by the spread of the World Wide Web (WWW). Bibliographic classification systems need to respond to this situation. Three possible strategic responses are described: 1) adopting an existing system; 2) adapting an existing system; and 3) finding new structural principles for classification systems. Examples of these three responses are given. An extended example of the third option uses the knowledge outline in the Spectrum of Britannica Online to suggest a theory of "viewpoint warrant" that could be used to incorporate differing perspectives into general classification systems

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

0.015401474 = product of:
  0.030802948 = sum of:
    0.030802948 = product of:
      0.061605897 = sum of:
        0.061605897 = weight(_text_:systems in 6606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061605897 = score(doc=6606,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.38414678 = fieldWeight in 6606, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6606)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Existing classification systems require constant expansion to accomodate new subject fields, while subject indexing techniques fail to display the relationship of subjects. Relational databases are currently being developed which will guide users through the differing levels of subjects, using the 'cartography of science'. Such developments will enable librarians to play a more interactive role in information retrieval and will have far-reaching consequences on the design of subject-indexing systems

0.015219918 = product of:
  0.030439837 = sum of:
    0.030439837 = product of:
      0.060879674 = sum of:
        0.060879674 = weight(_text_:systems in 4493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060879674 = score(doc=4493,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.37961838 = fieldWeight in 4493, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4493)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - Classification is an important process in making sense of the world, and has a pronounced social dimension. This paper aims to compare folksonomy, a new social classification system currently being developed on the web, with conventional taxonomy in the light of theoretical sociological and anthropological approaches. The co-existence of these two types of classification system raises the questions: Will and should taxonomies be hybridized with folksonomies? What can each of these systems contribute to information-searching processes, and how can the sociology of knowledge provide an answer to these questions? This paper aims also to address these issues. Design/methodology/approach - This paper is situated at the meeting point of the sociology of knowledge, epistemology and information science and aims at examining systems of classification in the light of both classical theory and current late-modern sociological and anthropological approaches. Findings - Using theoretical approaches current in the sociology of science and knowledge, the paper envisages two divergent possible outcomes. Originality/value - While concentrating on classifications systems, this paper addresses the more general social issue of what we know and how it is known. The concept of hybrid knowledge is suggested in order to illuminate the epistemological basis of late-modern knowledge being constructed by hybridizing contradictory modern knowledge categories, such as the subjective with the objective and the social with the natural. Integrating tree-like taxonomies with folksonomies or, in other words, generating a naturalized structural order of objective relations with social, subjective classification systems, can create a vast range of hybrid knowledge.

0.014147157 = product of:
  0.028294314 = sum of:
    0.028294314 = product of:
      0.056588627 = sum of:
        0.056588627 = weight(_text_:systems in 2669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056588627 = score(doc=2669,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.35286134 = fieldWeight in 2669, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2669)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The German standard on the construction and further development of classification systems is introduced with its background. The contents of its 8 chapters is described. A critical appraisal considers (1) the fact that the standard does not openly deal with the optimal form of CS, viz. faceted CS, but treats them as one possibility among others, although the authors seem to have had this kind in mind when recommending the section on steps of CS development and other sections of the standard; (2) that the standard does not give any recommendation on the computerization of the necessary activities in establishing CS; and (3) that a convergence of CS and thesauri in the form of faceted CS and faceted thesauri has not been taken into consideration. - Concludingly some doubts are raised whether a standard would be the best medium to provide recommendations or guidelines for the construction of such systems. More adequate ways for this should be explored

0.014147157 = product of:
  0.028294314 = sum of:
    0.028294314 = product of:
      0.056588627 = sum of:
        0.056588627 = weight(_text_:systems in 47) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056588627 = score(doc=47,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.35286134 = fieldWeight in 47, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=47)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

For the purpose of establishing compatibility between the major universal classification systems in use, their structure principles were investigated and crucial points of difficulty for this undertaking were looked for, in order to relate the guiding classes, e.g. of the DDC, UDC, LCC, BC, and CC, to the subject groups of the ICC. With the help of a matrix into whose fields all subject groups of the ICC were inserted, it was not difficult at all to enter the notations of the universal classification systems mentioned. However, differences in terms of level of subdivision were found, as well as differences of occurrences. Most, though not all, of the fields of the ICC matrix could be completely filled with the corresponding notations of the other systems. Through this matrix, a first table of some 81 equivalences was established on which further work regarding the next levels of subject fields can be based

0.014147157 = product of:
  0.028294314 = sum of:
    0.028294314 = product of:
      0.056588627 = sum of:
        0.056588627 = weight(_text_:systems in 3761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056588627 = score(doc=3761,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.35286134 = fieldWeight in 3761, 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=3761)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In the library and information sciences, classification theories are used primarily for knowledge organization, either in a manual or in a machine environment. In this context, classification theories have usually been developed initially as a support for specific knowledge organization classification systems, although the theories and the systems have influenced and re-influenced each other in particular ways throughout their lives. This entry discusses theories for knowledge organization classifications using examples from a number of classification systems, but no one system is discussed at length. Instead, the entry is organized into sections that deal first with classificatory issues in general and then with theories of content, theories of structure, and theories of notation for knowledge organization classifications.

0.014140441 = product of:
  0.028280882 = sum of:
    0.028280882 = product of:
      0.056561764 = sum of:
        0.056561764 = weight(_text_:22 in 1171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056561764 = score(doc=1171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1171, 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=1171)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Bulletin d'informations de l'Association des Bibliothecaires Francais. 1997, no.175, S.22-23

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 4339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056561764 = score(doc=4339,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4339, 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=4339)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Pages

S.1-22

0.013613109 = product of:
  0.027226217 = sum of:
    0.027226217 = product of:
      0.054452434 = sum of:
        0.054452434 = weight(_text_:systems in 3869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054452434 = score(doc=3869,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.339541 = fieldWeight in 3869, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3869)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The changes in KO systems induced by sociocultural influences may include those in both classificatory principles and cultural features. The proposed study will examine the Korean Decimal Classification (KDC)'s adaptation of the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) by comparing the two systems. This case manifests the sociocultural influences on KOSs in a cross-cultural context. Therefore, the study aims at an in-depth investigation of sociocultural influences by situating a KOS in a cross-cultural environment and examining the dynamics between two classification systems designed to organize information resources in two distinct sociocultural contexts. As a preceding stage of the comparison, the analysis was conducted on the changes that result from the meeting of different sociocultural feature in a descriptive method. The analysis aims to identify variations between the two schemes in comparison of the knowledge structures of the two classifications, in terms of the quantity of class numbers that represent concepts and their relationships in each of the individual main classes. The most effective analytic strategy to show the patterns of the comparison was visualizations of similarities and differences between the two systems. Increasing or decreasing tendencies in the class through various editions were analyzed. Comparing the compositions of the main classes and distributions of concepts in the KDC and DDC discloses the differences in their knowledge structures empirically. This phase of quantitative analysis and visualizing techniques generates empirical evidence leading to interpretation.

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.