Search (30 results, page 1 of 2)

0.022141643 = product of:
  0.06642493 = sum of:
    0.06642493 = sum of:
      0.018938582 = weight(_text_:of in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.018938582 = score(doc=5830,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 5830, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5830)
      0.047486346 = weight(_text_:22 in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047486346 = score(doc=5830,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5830, 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=5830)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper examnines various isues that arise in establishing a theoretical basis for an experimental fiction analysis system. It analyzes the warrants of fiction and of works about fiction. From this analysis, it derives classificatory requirements for a fiction system. Classificatory techniques that may contribute to the specification of data elements in fiction are suggested

Date

5. 8.2006 13:22:08

0.016131433 = product of:
  0.048394296 = sum of:
    0.048394296 = sum of:
      0.01871533 = weight(_text_:of in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01871533 = score(doc=3483,freq=20.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 3483, product of:
            4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
              20.0 = termFreq=20.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3483)
      0.029678967 = weight(_text_:22 in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029678967 = score(doc=3483,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

Footnote

Vgl.: Jacob, E.K.: Proposal for a classification of classifications built on Beghtol's distinction between "Naïve Classification" and "Professional Classification". In: Knowledge organization. 37(2010) no.2, S.111-120.

Pages

S.19-22

Source

Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine

0.004463867 = product of:
  0.0133916 = sum of:
    0.0133916 = product of:
      0.0267832 = sum of:
        0.0267832 = weight(_text_:of in 1346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0267832 = score(doc=1346,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.39093933 = fieldWeight in 1346, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1346)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Journal of documentation. 42(1986), S.84-113

0.004463867 = product of:
  0.0133916 = sum of:
    0.0133916 = product of:
      0.0267832 = sum of:
        0.0267832 = weight(_text_:of in 91) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0267832 = score(doc=91,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.39093933 = fieldWeight in 91, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=91)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Different types of subdivision may be used throughout the same classification system. This paper presents exploratory research into "wholes", "kinds" and "parts" as they relate to the theory and practice of bibliographic classification. Some problems of consistently identifying different kinds of subdivision and of the ambiguities of their relationships are discussed. Some implications of these issues for dynamism and stability in classification systems are addressed

Source

Dynamism and stability in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the 6th International ISKO-Conference, 10-13 July 2000, Toronto, Canada. Ed.: C. Beghtol et al

0.004142815 = product of:
  0.012428444 = sum of:
    0.012428444 = product of:
      0.024856888 = sum of:
        0.024856888 = weight(_text_:of in 1297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024856888 = score(doc=1297,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 1297, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1297)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Interdisciplinarity is a means by which the unit of information and the separateness of disciplines can work together harmoniously. Characterizes disciplinarity and the role of information science in serving other disciplines as well as its own discipline. Interdisciplinarity relationships occur among all knowledge seeking disciplines, (including LIS), and those between LIS and every other filed of knowledge production, utilization and practical action. Considers how LIS can promote interdisciplinarity relationships and research

Imprint

Alberta : Alberta University, School of Library and Information Studies

Source

Connectedness: information, systems, people, organizations. Proceedings of CAIS/ACSI 95, the proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Canadian Association for Information Science. Ed. by Hope A. Olson and Denis B. Ward

0.0041003237 = product of:
  0.01230097 = sum of:
    0.01230097 = product of:
      0.02460194 = sum of:
        0.02460194 = weight(_text_:of in 4462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02460194 = score(doc=4462,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 4462, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4462)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

New technologies have made the increased globalization of information resources and services possible. In this situation, it is ethically and intellectually beneficial to protect cultural and information diversity. This paper analyzes the problems of creating ethically based globally accessible and culturally acceptable knowledge representation and organization systems, and foundation principles for the ethical treatment of different cultures are established on the basis of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The concept of "cultural hospitality", which can act as a theoretical framework for the ethical warrant of knowledge representation and organization systems, is described. This broad discussion is grounded with an extended example of one cultural universal, the concept of time and its expression in calendars. Methods of achieving cultural and user hospitality in information systems are discussed for their potential for creating ethically based systems. It is concluded that cultural hospitality is a promising concept for assessing the ethical foundations of new knowledge representation and organization systems and for planning revisions to existing systems.

Source

Journal of documentation. 58(2002) no.5, S.507-532

0.0040669674 = product of:
  0.012200902 = sum of:
    0.012200902 = product of:
      0.024401804 = sum of:
        0.024401804 = weight(_text_:of in 1856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024401804 = score(doc=1856,freq=34.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.35617945 = fieldWeight in 1856, product of:
              5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
                34.0 = termFreq=34.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1856)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.003945538 = product of:
  0.0118366135 = sum of:
    0.0118366135 = product of:
      0.023673227 = sum of:
        0.023673227 = weight(_text_:of in 3487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023673227 = score(doc=3487,freq=32.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 3487, product of:
              5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
                32.0 = termFreq=32.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3487)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.003925761 = product of:
  0.011777283 = sum of:
    0.011777283 = product of:
      0.023554565 = sum of:
        0.023554565 = weight(_text_:of in 7728) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023554565 = score(doc=7728,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 7728, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=7728)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article reports research that used descriptor subfields in MLA Bibliography online to quantify literary warrant in the domain of scholarly work about fiction (i.e., 'fiction studies'). The research used Hulme's concept of literary warrant and Kernan's description of the interactive processes of literature and literary scholarship to justify quantifying existing subject indexing in existing bibliographic records as a first step in the domain analysis of a field. It was found that certain of the MLA Bibliography onle's descriptor subfields and certain of the descriptor terms within those subfields occured more often than would occur by chance. The techniques used in the research might be extended to domain analysis of other fields. Use of the methodology might improve the ability to evaluate existing and to design future subject access systems

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 46(1995) no.1, S.30-44

0.0039058835 = product of:
  0.01171765 = sum of:
    0.01171765 = product of:
      0.0234353 = sum of:
        0.0234353 = weight(_text_:of in 6084) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0234353 = score(doc=6084,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 6084, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6084)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Canadian journal of information and library science. 20(1996) no.2, S.30-41

0.003743066 = product of:
  0.0112291975 = sum of:
    0.0112291975 = product of:
      0.022458395 = sum of:
        0.022458395 = weight(_text_:of in 2681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022458395 = score(doc=2681,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 2681, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2681)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The problem of how to provide access to information regardless of linguistic or other domain boundaries or cultural traditions can be approached by examining how cultural universals are implemented in specific cultures at specific times and places. The universal concept of "time" and its implementation in calendars is used as an illustration, and how time is treated in knowledge organization systems is briefly described. A broadened definition for the concept of "hospitality" is proposed for use in evaluating the efficacy of knowledge organization systems. The identification of the complementary concept of "cultural hospitality" provides a theoretical framework to inform decisions about the types of access that can (and/or should) be provided by knowledge organization systems that purport to be globally useful and ethically balanced.

Source

Challenges in knowledge representation and organization for the 21st century: Integration of knowledge across boundaries. Proceedings of the 7th ISKO International Conference Granada, Spain, July 10-13, 2002. Ed.: M. López-Huertas

0.0037182902 = product of:
  0.0111548705 = sum of:
    0.0111548705 = product of:
      0.022309741 = sum of:
        0.022309741 = weight(_text_:of in 3536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022309741 = score(doc=3536,freq=58.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.32564276 = fieldWeight in 3536, product of:
              7.615773 = tf(freq=58.0), with freq of:
                58.0 = termFreq=58.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3536)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.0036907129 = product of:
  0.011072138 = sum of:
    0.011072138 = product of:
      0.022144277 = sum of:
        0.022144277 = weight(_text_:of in 3021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022144277 = score(doc=3021,freq=28.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.32322758 = fieldWeight in 3021, product of:
              5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
                28.0 = termFreq=28.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3021)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Classification is a transdisciplinary activity that occurs during all human pursuits. Classificatory activity, however, serves different purposes in different situations. In information retrieval, the primary purpose of classification is to find knowledge that already exists, but one of the purposes of classification in other fields is to discover new knowledge. In this paper, classifications for information retrieval are called "professional" classifications because they are devised by people who have a professional interest in classification, and classifications for knowledge discovery are called "naive" classifications because they are devised by people who have no particular interest in studying classification as an end in itself. This paper compares the overall purposes and methods of these two kinds of classifications and provides a general model of the relationships between the two kinds of classificatory activity in the context of information studies. This model addresses issues of the influence of scholarly activity and communication an the creation and revision of classifications for the purposes of information retrieval and for the purposes of knowledge discovery. Further comparisons elucidate the relationships between the universality of classificatory methods and the specific purposes served by naive and professional classification systems.

0.0036536194 = product of:
  0.010960858 = sum of:
    0.010960858 = product of:
      0.021921717 = sum of:
        0.021921717 = weight(_text_:of in 5844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021921717 = score(doc=5844,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 5844, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5844)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The arts, humanities, and social sciences commonly borrow concepts and methods from the sciences, but interdisciplinary borrowing seldom occurs in the opposite direction. Research on narrative discourse is relevant to problems of documentary storage and retrieval, for the arts and humanities in particular, but also for other broad areas of knowledge. This paper views the potential application of narrative discourse analysis to information storage and retrieval problems from 2 perspectives: 1) analysis and comparison of narrative documents in all disciplines may be simplified if fundamental categories that occur in narrative documents can be isolated; and 2) the possibility of subdividing the world of knowledge initially into narrative and non-narrative documents is explored with particular attention to Werlich's work on text types

0.0035509837 = product of:
  0.010652951 = sum of:
    0.010652951 = product of:
      0.021305902 = sum of:
        0.021305902 = weight(_text_:of in 1138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021305902 = score(doc=1138,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 1138, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1138)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

Source

Relationships in the organization of knowledge. Eds.: Bean, C.A. u. R. Green

0.0035509837 = product of:
  0.010652951 = sum of:
    0.010652951 = product of:
      0.021305902 = sum of:
        0.021305902 = weight(_text_:of in 869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021305902 = score(doc=869,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 869, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=869)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

James Duff Brown was an influential and energetic librarian in Great Britain in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. His Subject Classification has characteristics that were unusual and idiosyncratic during his own time, but his work deserves recognition as one of the precursors of modern bibliographic classification systems. This article discusses a number of theories and classification practices that Brown developed. In particular, it investigates his views on the order of main classes, on the phenomenon of "concrete" subjects, and on the need for synthesized notations. It traces these ideas briefly into the future through the work of S. R. Ranganathan, the Classification Research Group, and the second edition of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification system. It concludes that Brown's work warrants further study for the light it may shed on current classification theory and practice.

0.0035289964 = product of:
  0.010586989 = sum of:
    0.010586989 = product of:
      0.021173978 = sum of:
        0.021173978 = weight(_text_:of in 4018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021173978 = score(doc=4018,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 4018, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4018)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Proposes a new experimental methodology for evaluating the results of library research from the user's viewpoint. Illustrates the theory by comparing the efficacy of information retrieved from 2 document catalogues, identical except that one is alphabetical and the other numerical/verbal. The methodology utilises the concept of 3 dependent variables: 'promising references retrieved' by the researcher; 'documents read'; and 'documents cited'. Claims that the retrieval effectiveness of the techniques outlined compares favourably with that of W.S. Cooper's methodology

0.003382594 = product of:
  0.010147782 = sum of:
    0.010147782 = product of:
      0.020295564 = sum of:
        0.020295564 = weight(_text_:of in 666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020295564 = score(doc=666,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 666, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=666)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The interdisciplinary field of information studies requires an eclectic and imaginative curriculum. Future information professionals need intellectual tools that will enable them to adapt to changed social and technological environments. In this situation, the study of classification, including both principles application for current bibliographic systems and principles of construction that could be used to develop new systems for bibliographic and non bibliographic materials, is one way to equip students with the balanced flexibility to adapt to changing needs. Knowledge of the organization of knowledge is basic to any kind of information work

0.003382594 = product of:
  0.010147782 = sum of:
    0.010147782 = product of:
      0.020295564 = sum of:
        0.020295564 = weight(_text_:of in 3413) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020295564 = score(doc=3413,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 3413, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3413)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The work is an adaptation of the author's dissertation and has the following chapters: (1) background and introduction; (2) a problem in classification theory; (3) previous fiction analysis theories and systems and 'The left hand of darkness'; (4) fiction warrant and critical warrant; (5) experimental fiction analysis system (EFAS); (6) application and evaluation of EFAS. Appendix 1 gives references to fiction analysis systems and appendix 2 lists EFAS coding sheets

Footnote

Rez. in: Knowledge organization 21(1994) no.3, S.165-167 (W. Bies); JASIS 46(1995) no.5, S.389-390 (E.G. Bierbaum); Canadian journal of information and library science 20(1995) nos.3/4, S.52-53 (L. Rees-Potter)

0.0033478998 = product of:
  0.010043699 = sum of:
    0.010043699 = product of:
      0.020087399 = sum of:
        0.020087399 = weight(_text_:of in 44) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020087399 = score(doc=44,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 44, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=44)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

Source

Structures and relations in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the 5th International ISKO-Conference, Lille, 25.-29.8.1998. Ed.: W. Mustafa el Hadi et al