Search (32 results, page 1 of 2)

0.0047346456 = product of:
  0.014203936 = sum of:
    0.014203936 = product of:
      0.028407872 = sum of:
        0.028407872 = weight(_text_:of in 3569) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028407872 = score(doc=3569,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.41465375 = fieldWeight in 3569, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3569)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reports the results of research designed to explore the feasibility of automatically deriving name access points from machine readable title pages of English language monographs. Results show that approximately 88% of the access points selected by the Library of Congress or the National Library of Medicine could be automatically derived from title page data. These results have implications for the design of bibliographic standards and on-line catalogues.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 41(1990) no.4, S.254-263

0.0045800544 = product of:
  0.013740162 = sum of:
    0.013740162 = product of:
      0.027480325 = sum of:
        0.027480325 = weight(_text_:of in 1890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027480325 = score(doc=1890,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.40111488 = fieldWeight in 1890, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1890)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Different types of eveidence used in answering the question: what is good indexing? are considered. The evidence is presented in the context of the method on inquiry which produced mysticism, rationalism or empiricism. The method of mysticism is illustrated with reference to Cutter and the problem of specific entry. Ranganathan's approach to the controversy over alphabetical vs. classified arrangement is used to illustrate the method of rationalism. Cleverdon's work is taken as an example of the method of empiricism. In providing evidence for good indexing, the method of empiricism is found wanting. It is suggested that the method be improved by fundamental research into problems of sampling and definition, and that it be supplementend by other methods of inquiry

0.004463867 = product of:
  0.0133916 = sum of:
    0.0133916 = product of:
      0.0267832 = sum of:
        0.0267832 = weight(_text_:of in 2084) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0267832 = score(doc=2084,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.39093933 = fieldWeight in 2084, 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=2084)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Classification research at any point in time is the resultant product of various philosophical, technological, social, economic, and political forces. This address attemps first to give a partial description of the present state of classification research as determined by one of these forces: philosophy, in particular the 20th century analytic philosophies of logical positivism, linguistic analysis and systems analysis; and, second, assuming the continued influence of these, to speculate upon the future of classification research in terms of its prospects, problems and possibilities

0.00436691 = product of:
  0.01310073 = sum of:
    0.01310073 = product of:
      0.02620146 = sum of:
        0.02620146 = weight(_text_:of in 2379) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02620146 = score(doc=2379,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.38244802 = fieldWeight in 2379, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2379)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The advent of the computer has brought epistemological questions, heretofore the province of classificationists and philosophers, into the limelight of popular thought. No longer of only theoretical interest, such questions stand in need of operational answers, at least if computers are to process information intelligently. Answers to these questions are embodied in what today are known as knowledge representations. Knowledge representations are used for a variety of related purposes, including language and text understanding, cognitive research, expert system development and information retrieval. This paper focuses on the use of three computer-based knowledge representations of potential relevance for information retrieval: hypertext systems, cluster analysis and knowledge representations accomodating rule-based reasoning. It then considers research that might be pursued to inform the development of knowledge representations for information retrieval

0.004175565 = product of:
  0.012526695 = sum of:
    0.012526695 = product of:
      0.02505339 = sum of:
        0.02505339 = weight(_text_:of in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02505339 = score(doc=2654,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.36569026 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article discusses some of Ranganathan's contributions to the productive, practical and theoretical aspects of classification science. These include: (1) a set of design criteria to guide the designing of schemes for knowledge / subject classification; (2) a conceptual framework for organizing the universe of subjects; and (3) an understanding of the general principles underlying subject disciplines and classificatory languages. It concludes that Ranganathan has contributed significantly to laying the foundations for a science of subject classification.

0.0039058835 = product of:
  0.01171765 = sum of:
    0.01171765 = product of:
      0.0234353 = sum of:
        0.0234353 = weight(_text_:of in 2404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0234353 = score(doc=2404,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 2404, 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=2404)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Imprint

Edmonton, Alberta : Univ. of Alberta, Faculty of Extension

0.0039058835 = product of:
  0.01171765 = sum of:
    0.01171765 = product of:
      0.0234353 = sum of:
        0.0234353 = weight(_text_:of in 1271) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0234353 = score(doc=1271,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 1271, 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=1271)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information science. Vol.45, [=Suppl.10]

0.003865822 = product of:
  0.011597466 = sum of:
    0.011597466 = product of:
      0.023194931 = sum of:
        0.023194931 = weight(_text_:of in 8263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023194931 = score(doc=8263,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 8263, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8263)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

An examination of some nonbook materials with respect to an aboutness model of indexing leads to the conclusion that there are instances that defy subject indexing. These occur not so much because of the nature of the medium per se but because it is being used for nondocumentary purposes, or, when being used for such purposes, the subject referenced is nonlexical

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 45(1994) no.8, S.600-606

0.003865822 = product of:
  0.011597466 = sum of:
    0.011597466 = product of:
      0.023194931 = sum of:
        0.023194931 = weight(_text_:of in 766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023194931 = score(doc=766,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 766, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=766)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper looks at the epistemological foundations of knowledge representations embodied in retrieval languages. It considers questions such as the validity of knowledge representations and their effectiveness for the purposes of retrieval and automation. The knowledge representations it considers are derived from three theories of meaning that have dominated twentieth-century philosophy.

Footnote

Artikel in einem Themenheft: The philosophy of information

0.003743066 = product of:
  0.0112291975 = sum of:
    0.0112291975 = product of:
      0.022458395 = sum of:
        0.022458395 = weight(_text_:of in 361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022458395 = score(doc=361,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 361, 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=361)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The problem addressed in this paper is that of simplifying access point determination. A critique is made of the simple, mechanical rule whereby every name appearing in certain designatable locations within a publication qualifies as an access point. Then a more acceptable version of the every-name-an-access-point rule is tested empirically against a sample of 400 English language monographs. Conclusions reached concern (1) the responsibility profiles of these monographs, i.e., how many authors, editors, illustrators and emanators are typically associated with them and in what combinations, and (2) the relative productivity of different locations within them, e.g., title pages and tables of contents, as sources of access points. The study was conceived to be exploratory in nature and its findings suggest further research that could be done to provide empirical validation for rules for access point determination.

0.003701243 = product of:
  0.011103729 = sum of:
    0.011103729 = product of:
      0.022207458 = sum of:
        0.022207458 = weight(_text_:of in 5056) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022207458 = score(doc=5056,freq=44.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.3241498 = fieldWeight in 5056, product of:
              6.6332498 = tf(freq=44.0), with freq of:
                44.0 = termFreq=44.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5056)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Rez. in: Knowledge organization 27(2000) no.3, S.173-175 (G. Campbell): "Bibliographic control rests on a rich and intriguing theoretical foundation. All too often, however, students and scholars of information studies pass this foundation over, perhaps because of its fragmentation. Information organization theory has evolved in tandem with practice, and particularly through innumerable policy decisions: its central tenets, therefore, appear in prefaces to manuals and catalogues, in library bulletins, in standards and rule interpretations, and in professional and scholarly conference proceedings. Gathering this theory together is a formidable task, and Svenonius has already made a significant contribution through the two sourcebooks she has coedited: Foundations of Cataloging (1985), and Theory of Subject Analysis (1985). With The Intellectual Foundation of Information Organization, 'Svenonius goes a huge step further: she pulls the fragments of bibliographic control theory together and sets them within a holistic theoretical framework. The result is a significant contribution to LIS scholarship, one which evokes the best of all possible responses: dissatisfied cries for more. Svenonius divides her treatise into two parts containing five chapters each. The first part provides a theoretically-grounded articulation of the objectives, entities, languages and principles of information organization. The field, she argues, rests on three distinct philsophical traditions. Systems philosophy, as developed in library circles by Charles Cutter, gives a holistic and visionary dimension to bibliographic control: a tendency to see individual processes as part of a larger, coherent structure. The philosophy of science, typified in the field by Cyril Cleverdon in the 1950s, emphasizes the need to quantify and generalize, and to subject the tenets of information retrieval to empirical verification. Language philosophy introduces the concept of language rules, and argues that information organization is a "particular kind of language use" (p. 6): an approach which enables us to employ linguistic concepts of semantics, vocabulary and syntax to explain the processes of information organization. Having established this framework, Svenonius goes on to discuss the objectives of bibliographic retrieval systems. Deftly combining the seminal contributions of Cutter, Seymour Lubetzky, the Paris Principles of 1961, and the IFLA objectives of 1997, she produces five central objectives of bibliographic control: locating entitles (finding), identifying entitles (collocating), selecting them (choice), acquiring or gaining access to them (acquisition), and navigating a bibliographic database (navigation) (p. 20)". -

0.0035289964 = product of:
  0.010586989 = sum of:
    0.010586989 = product of:
      0.021173978 = sum of:
        0.021173978 = weight(_text_:of in 762) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021173978 = score(doc=762,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 762, 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=762)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Delineates on the changing role of vocabulary control devices such as classification, subject headings, and thesaurus. Identifies the basic issue in the design and development of these devices and their role in the changing information technology. The paper identifies the differentiations needed in the new roles of these devices in data base technology

0.003382594 = product of:
  0.010147782 = sum of:
    0.010147782 = product of:
      0.020295564 = sum of:
        0.020295564 = weight(_text_:of in 1066) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020295564 = score(doc=1066,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 1066, 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=1066)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Key problems of subject searches in online public access catalogs are that too much may be retrieved and that the display may be arranged in what appears to be an unintuitive and unhelpful manner. A study was undertaken on one large database to determine how often the display of a subject and its modifications and subdivisions extended over more than two screens and what the results on display would be of compressing geographic subdivisions and other modifications. The study then addressed the question of how often the display of a term and its subdivisions was interrupted by the appearance in the display of inverted headings, phrase headings, and headings with parenthetical qualifiers

0.003382594 = product of:
  0.010147782 = sum of:
    0.010147782 = product of:
      0.020295564 = sum of:
        0.020295564 = weight(_text_:of in 2838) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020295564 = score(doc=2838,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 2838, 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=2838)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reports results of a project to explore ways of reconfiguring AACR2 for use in an automated environment. A subset of AACR2 title proper rules for books was chosen for analysis. A functional classification of the rule subset was developed, based on the 4 facets: Source, Choice, Form, and Definition. The rules were also classified according to whether they were core or peripheral. A prototype electronic interface was developed for searching and displaying the classified rules. The greatest problem in the rule reconfiguration stemmed from the structural problems of AACR2: rule groupings combining multiple subfacets under a single rule; rule redundancy; and rule scatter, between chapters, and between sections of chapters and appendices

0.0031564306 = product of:
  0.009469291 = sum of:
    0.009469291 = product of:
      0.018938582 = sum of:
        0.018938582 = weight(_text_:of in 108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018938582 = score(doc=108,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 108, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=108)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.0031564306 = product of:
  0.009469291 = sum of:
    0.009469291 = product of:
      0.018938582 = sum of:
        0.018938582 = weight(_text_:of in 5278) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018938582 = score(doc=5278,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 5278, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5278)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.0031564306 = product of:
  0.009469291 = sum of:
    0.009469291 = product of:
      0.018938582 = sum of:
        0.018938582 = weight(_text_:of in 289) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018938582 = score(doc=289,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 289, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=289)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 16(1981), S.291-317

0.0031564306 = product of:
  0.009469291 = sum of:
    0.009469291 = product of:
      0.018938582 = sum of:
        0.018938582 = weight(_text_:of in 584) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018938582 = score(doc=584,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 584, 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=584)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The issue of free-text versus controlled vocabulary is examined in this article. The history of the issue, which is seen as beginning with the debate over title term indexing in the last century, is reviewed and the attention is turned to questions which have not been satisfactorily addressed by previous research. The point is made that these questions need to be answered if we are to design retrieval tools, such as thesauri, upon a national basis

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 37(1986) no.5, S.331-340

0.0030878722 = product of:
  0.009263616 = sum of:
    0.009263616 = product of:
      0.018527232 = sum of:
        0.018527232 = weight(_text_:of in 5612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018527232 = score(doc=5612,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 5612, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5612)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Recent papers have called attention to discrepancies in the assignment of LCSH. While philosophical arguments can be made that subject analysis, if not a logical impossibility, at least is point-of-view dependent, subject headings continue to be assigned and continue to be useful. The hypothesis advanced in the present project is that to a considerable degree there is a clear-cut right and wrong to LCSH subject heading assignment. To test the hypothesis, it was postulated that the assignment of a subject heading is correct if it is supported by textual warrant (at least 20% of the book being cataloged is on the topic) and is constructed in accordance with the LoC Subject Cataloging Manual: Subject Headings. A sample of 100 books on scientific subjects was used to test the hypothesis

0.0030878722 = product of:
  0.009263616 = sum of:
    0.009263616 = product of:
      0.018527232 = sum of:
        0.018527232 = weight(_text_:of in 2623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018527232 = score(doc=2623,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 2623, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2623)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Historical account of the sophisticated method of indexing developed by J.O. Kaiser (1896/97), a librarian at the Philadelphia Commercial Museum who established his index on cards (a novelty then) and distinguished his items according to the categories 'concrete', 'process', and 'country'. He also introduced "statement indexing" and rules to this end in order to permit the supply of "complete information" on a subject in a document. In summarizing these findings, the author stresses the necessitiy of establishing well-defined categories if an organization of terms is to serve e.g. information retrieval.