Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

0.054925613 = product of:
  0.109851226 = sum of:
    0.109851226 = sum of:
      0.053188704 = weight(_text_:research in 2289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053188704 = score(doc=2289,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.35662293 = fieldWeight in 2289, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2289)
      0.056662526 = weight(_text_:22 in 2289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056662526 = score(doc=2289,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2289, 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=2289)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper looks at current trends in knowledge organization research, concentrating an universal systems, mapping vocabularies and interoperability concerns, problems of blas, the Internet and search engines, resource discovery, thesauri and visual presentation. Some Problems facing researchers at the present time are discussed. It is accompanied by a bibliography of recent work in the field.

Date

10. 6.2004 19:22:56

0.034328513 = product of:
  0.068657026 = sum of:
    0.068657026 = sum of:
      0.03324294 = weight(_text_:research in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03324294 = score(doc=3692,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.22288933 = fieldWeight in 3692, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3692)
      0.03541408 = weight(_text_:22 in 3692) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03541408 = score(doc=3692,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3692, 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=3692)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The death of Brian Vickery sees a great era of classification research coming towards an end. Born in Australia, he completed his schooling in England, before going up to Brasenose to read Chemistry just before the outbreak of the Second World War. Brian was never in the services, but after Oxford he worked as a chemist in the Royal Ordnance Factory from 1941-45. After the War he became a librarian at Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI). He was a delegate at the Royal Society Scientific Information Conference held in 1948. One of the offshoots of that conference was the formation of a small committee of scientists under the leadership of Professor J.D. Bernal, to make a study of library classification. After two years of discussions, they elicited the assistance of Jack Wells, then editor of the British National Bibliography, and Brian. They circularized a group of colleagues and convened a meeting in February 1952 which led to the formation of the Classification Research Group. As is well known, this Group, all practising librarians, were to exert a groundbreaking influence on the organization and retrieval of information.

Date

22. 7.2010 19:32:06

0.024789855 = product of:
  0.04957971 = sum of:
    0.04957971 = product of:
      0.09915942 = sum of:
        0.09915942 = weight(_text_:22 in 1012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09915942 = score(doc=1012,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 1012, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1012)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Extensions and corrections to the UDC. 22(2000), S.49-75

0.023031384 = product of:
  0.046062768 = sum of:
    0.046062768 = product of:
      0.092125535 = sum of:
        0.092125535 = weight(_text_:research in 4117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.092125535 = score(doc=4117,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.617689 = fieldWeight in 4117, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4117)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper describes a survey of subject analysis research over the ten year period 1988 to 1998. Data are drawn from the 'research environment' encompassing publications, conference papers, major bibliographic resources in the field of Library and Information Science and selective searches of the Internet. Findings reveal major and minor areas of research activity. Trends and developments are identified and conclusions drawn. Strengths and weaknesses in the approaches taken to subject analysis research are discussed and suggestions for improvements are made with a view to future research directions

0.012394927 = product of:
  0.024789855 = sum of:
    0.024789855 = product of:
      0.04957971 = sum of:
        0.04957971 = weight(_text_:22 in 1899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04957971 = score(doc=1899,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1899, 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=1899)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Knowledge organization. 22(1995) no.2, S.64-69

0.01163503 = product of:
  0.02327006 = sum of:
    0.02327006 = product of:
      0.04654012 = sum of:
        0.04654012 = weight(_text_:research in 7738) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04654012 = score(doc=7738,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.31204507 = fieldWeight in 7738, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7738)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

An exploratory and experimental study for the purpose of testing a methodology which might be used to restructure the UDC class by class. The study uses the facet framework established in the Bliss Bibliographic Classification, 2nd ed., as the basis for the restructuring and the research is being carried out using the discipline 'medical sciences'. A thesaurus will be derived from the restructured scheme which will act as an index to it. In a broader context this research is an attempt to see how far it is possible to take the knowledge base of one classification scheme and impose the structure of another scheme on it

0.010512341 = product of:
  0.021024682 = sum of:
    0.021024682 = product of:
      0.042049363 = sum of:
        0.042049363 = weight(_text_:research in 2130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042049363 = score(doc=2130,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.2819352 = fieldWeight in 2130, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2130)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The aim of this special issue of Knowledge Organization is to explore the definition of the interdisciplinary field of "knowledge organization" through historical and contemporary perspectives. The goal is to provide a shared framework of terminology, theories, methodologies, and approaches to stimulate research. The International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO) is the premier international scholarly society devoted to the theory and practice of knowledge organization. At the Ninth International ISKO Conference in Vienna in July 2006, it became clear during informal conversations and discussions within the Scientific Advisory Council that there was a need to present a shared definition of the field of knowledge organization. While a majority of ISKO members are drawn from the field of library and information science (LIS), interest in knowledge organization is not limited to the LIS field. Indeed, contributors to Knowledge Organization (the society's journal) and to ISKO conferences represent areas of interdisciplinary research and application well beyond LIS itself. The excitement engendered by wide interest from many disciplines in the field of knowledge organization has also caused some confusion about the meaning of "knowledge organization" and its relationship to other fields such as "knowledge management." We have invited a group of authors drawn widely from the ISKO community and who among them span a half century of research in the field to address such questions as:
- What is knowledge organization? - What are the meanings of "document," "information," and "knowledge" in knowledge organization? - What are the defining questions in knowledge organization? - What fields have an interest in the defining questions of knowledge organization? - Which epistemologies, theories, and methodologies are relevant in the knowledge organization field? - What are some current research questions in knowledge organization? - What are the long-term research questions in knowledge organization? - What relationships are specified in the organization of knowledge? - What are knowledge organization systems?

0.009402524 = product of:
  0.018805047 = sum of:
    0.018805047 = product of:
      0.037610095 = sum of:
        0.037610095 = weight(_text_:research in 3120) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037610095 = score(doc=3120,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.2521705 = fieldWeight in 3120, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3120)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

African research and documentation. 1994, no.65, S.10-31

0.008142825 = product of:
  0.01628565 = sum of:
    0.01628565 = product of:
      0.0325713 = sum of:
        0.0325713 = weight(_text_:research in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0325713 = score(doc=6089,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.21838607 = fieldWeight in 6089, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6089)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The genesis of the Group: In 1948, as part of the post-war renewal of library services in the United Kingdom, the Royal Society organized a Conference on Scientific Information.' What, at the time, must have seemed a minute part of the grand plan, but was later to have a transforming effect on the theory of knowledge organization throughout the remainder of the century, was the setting up of a standing committee of a small group of specialists to investigate the organization and retrieval of scientific information. In 1950, the secretary of that committee, J.D. Bernal, suggested that it might be appropriate to ask a group of librarians to do a study of the problem. After a couple of years of informal discussion it was agreed, in February 1952, to form a Classification Research Group - the CRG as it has become known to subsequent generations. The Group published a brief corporate statement of its views in the Library Association Record in June 1953 and submitted a memorandum to the Library Association Research Committee in May 1955, entitled "The need for a faceted classification as the basis of all methods of information retrieval". This memorandum was published in the proceedings of what has become known as the "Dorking Conference" in 1957. Of the original fifteen members, four still belong to the Group, three of whom are in regular attendance: Eric Coates, Douglas Foskett and Jack Mills. Brian Vickery ceased attending regularly in the 1960s but has retained his interest in their doings: he was present at the 150th celebratory meeting in 1984 and played an active part in the "Dorking revisited" conference held in 1997. The stated aim of the Group was 'To review the basic principles of bibliographic classification, unhampered by allegiance to any particular published scheme' and it can truly be stated that the work of its members has had a fundamental influence on the teaching and practice of information retrieval. It is paradoxical that this collection of people has exerted such a strong theoretical sway because their aims were from the outset and remain essentially practical. This fact is sometimes overlooked in the literature on knowledge organization: there is a tendency to get carried away, and for researchers of today to concentrate so hard on what might be that they overlook what is needed, useful and practical - the entire objective of any retrieval system.

0.005876578 = product of:
  0.011753156 = sum of:
    0.011753156 = product of:
      0.023506312 = sum of:
        0.023506312 = weight(_text_:research in 141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023506312 = score(doc=141,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.15760657 = fieldWeight in 141, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=141)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Outlines the bibliographic enterprise envisaged by Otlet and LaFontaine, which resulted in the UDC being developed in 1895, and the subsequent history of the scheme. Relationship with DDC from which it was derived deteriorated in the early 20th century and changes in funding, location, and editorship of Duyvis from 1929-59 had a profound effect on the scheme's development and management. Lloyd, Duyvis successor, reformed the revision structure, and further management changes from 1975 to the present day, culminated in the formation of the UDC Consortium in 1992. Notes the subsequent creation of a machine-readable Master Reference File and speedier revision procedures. Examines the scheme's structure, development, and influence on classification theory, problems caused by longevity and lack of standrad procedures, and highlights proposals for their reform to improve the scheme's suitability for an automated world. Explores research projects in 1960s which foreshadowed possibilities today, such as a complementary thesaurus and individualisation of single concepts notationally. Emphasizes the value of classification in a multilingual environment and outlines the future developments

0.004701262 = product of:
  0.009402524 = sum of:
    0.009402524 = product of:
      0.018805047 = sum of:
        0.018805047 = weight(_text_:research in 2764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018805047 = score(doc=2764,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.12608525 = fieldWeight in 2764, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2764)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Prior to the OPAC many institutions devised classifications to suit their special needs. Others expanded or altered general schemes to accommodate specific approaches. A driving force in the creation of these classifications was the Classification Research Group, celebrating its golden jubilee in 2002, whose work created a framework and body of principles that remain valid for the retrieval needs of today. The paper highlights some of these special schemes and highlights the fundamental principles which remain valid. 1. Introduction The distinction between a general and a special classification scheme is made frequently in the textbooks, but is one that it is sometimes difficult to draw. The Library of Congress classification could be described as the special classification par excellence. Normally, however, a special classification is taken to be one that is restricted to a specific subject, and quite often used in one specific context only, either a library or a bibliographic listing or for a specific purpose such as a search engine and it is in this sense that I propose to examine some of these schemes. Today, there is a widespread preference for searching an words as a supplement to the use of a standard system, usually the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC). This is enhanced by the ability to search documents full-text in a computerized environment, a situation that did not exist 20 or 30 years ago. Today's situation is a great improvement in many ways, but it does depend upon the words used by the author and the searcher corresponding, and often presupposes the use of English. In libraries, the use of co-operative services and precatalogued records already provided with classification data has also spelt the demise of the special scheme. In many instances, the survival of a special classification depends upon its creaior and, with the passage of time, this becomes inevitably more precarious.