Search (1 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0032675539 = product of:
  0.0130702155 = sum of:
    0.0130702155 = product of:
      0.026140431 = sum of:
        0.026140431 = weight(_text_:aspects in 3622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026140431 = score(doc=3622,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.1248449 = fieldWeight in 3622, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3622)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Criteria for Selection In selecting the writings to be included in this reader, we have followed the criteria listed below: 1. Theoretical emphasis. Our focus is an theoretical and philosophical aspects rather than practical or technical considerations. In a number of cases, where several authors have written an the same subject or idea or expressed similar thoughts, the originator of the idea, if this could be determined, was selected. 2. Significance and impact. Our most important criterion is the significance of a particular piece or the contribution that it has made in the field of subject analysis. The impact of the ideas or concepts an subsequent practice in subject analysis has also been considered. 3. Perspicuity. Where multiple choices were available an a particular topic or area, our tendency was to exclude the writings that are obscure or highly technical and would require a high degree of tech nical sophistication an the part of the reader. Comprehensibility and clarity of style were often our guide. Based an the criteria stated above, the following types of writings have generally been excluded: review articles, the how-to-do-it type of writings, and textbook materials. In a way, it would probably be easier to defend the writings that have been included than to justify the exclusions. In a small volume containing writings chosen from a vast amount of available material, it is virtually impossible to arrive at a collection that will satisfy every reader. Each person has his or her own preferences or criteria. Inevitably, personal bias comes into play in assembling such a reader. At least, we hope that in this case the collective bias of three individuals rather than one has helped to provide a certain degree of balance. A number of writings originally selected for inclusion were omitted because of space limitation or failure to secure permission to reprint.