Search (233 results, page 2 of 12)

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

0.01597191 = product of:
  0.047915727 = sum of:
    0.047915727 = sum of:
      0.01230097 = weight(_text_:of in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01230097 = score(doc=780,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.17955035 = fieldWeight in 780, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=780)
      0.03561476 = weight(_text_:22 in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03561476 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 780, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=780)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Networked orientated standards for vocabulary publishing and exchange and proposals for terminological services and terminology registries will improve sharing and use of all knowledge organization systems in the networked information environment. This means that documentary classifications may also become more applicable for use outside their original domain of application. The paper summarises some characteristics common to documentary classifications and explains some terminological, functional and implementation aspects. The original purpose behind each classification scheme determines the functions that the vocabulary is designed to facilitate. These functions influence the structure, semantics and syntax, scheme coverage and format in which classification data are published and made available. The author suggests that attention should be paid to the differences between documentary classifications as these may determine their suitability for a certain purpose and may impose different requirements with respect to their use online. As we speak, many classifications are being created for knowledge organization and it may be important to promote expertise from the bibliographic domain with respect to building and using classification systems.

Date

22.12.2007 17:22:31

0.014793672 = product of:
  0.044381015 = sum of:
    0.044381015 = sum of:
      0.020637842 = weight(_text_:of in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020637842 = score(doc=2763,freq=38.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.30123898 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
            6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
              38.0 = termFreq=38.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.023743173 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023743173 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The different points of views an knowledge representation and organization from various research communities reflect underlying philosophies and paradigms in these communities. This paper reviews differences and relations in knowledge representation and organization and generalizes four paradigms-integrative and disintegrative pragmatism and integrative and disintegrative epistemologism. Examples such as classification, XML schemas, and ontologies are compared based an how they specify concepts, build data models, and encode knowledge organization structures. 1. Introduction Knowledge representation (KR) is a term that several research communities use to refer to somewhat different aspects of the same research area. The artificial intelligence (AI) community considers KR as simply "something to do with writing down, in some language or communications medium, descriptions or pictures that correspond in some salient way to the world or a state of the world" (Duce & Ringland, 1988, p. 3). It emphasizes the ways in which knowledge can be encoded in a computer program (Bench-Capon, 1990). For the library and information science (LIS) community, KR is literally the synonym of knowledge organization, i.e., KR is referred to as the process of organizing knowledge into classifications, thesauri, or subject heading lists. KR has another meaning in LIS: it "encompasses every type and method of indexing, abstracting, cataloguing, classification, records management, bibliography and the creation of textual or bibliographic databases for information retrieval" (Anderson, 1996, p. 336). Adding the social dimension to knowledge organization, Hjoerland (1997) states that knowledge is a part of human activities and tied to the division of labor in society, which should be the primary organization of knowledge. Knowledge organization in LIS is secondary or derived, because knowledge is organized in learned institutions and publications. These different points of views an KR suggest that an essential difference in the understanding of KR between both AI and LIS lies in the source of representationwhether KR targets human activities or derivatives (knowledge produced) from human activities. This difference also decides their difference in purpose-in AI KR is mainly computer-application oriented or pragmatic and the result of representation is used to support decisions an human activities, while in LIS KR is conceptually oriented or abstract and the result of representation is used for access to derivatives from human activities.

Date

12. 9.2004 17:22:35

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

0.014725267 = product of:
  0.0441758 = sum of:
    0.0441758 = sum of:
      0.014496832 = weight(_text_:of in 1778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.014496832 = score(doc=1778,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.21160212 = fieldWeight in 1778, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1778)
      0.029678967 = weight(_text_:22 in 1778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029678967 = score(doc=1778,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1778, 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=1778)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to introduce a new similarity method to gauge the differences between two subject hierarchical structures. Design/methodology/approach - In the proposed similarity measure, nodes on two hierarchical structures are projected onto a two-dimensional space, respectively, and both structural similarity and subject similarity of nodes are considered in the similarity between the two hierarchical structures. The extent to which the structural similarity impacts on the similarity can be controlled by adjusting a parameter. An experiment was conducted to evaluate soundness of the measure. Eight experts whose research interests were information retrieval and information organization participated in the study. Results from the new measure were compared with results from the experts. Findings - The evaluation shows strong correlations between the results from the new method and the results from the experts. It suggests that the similarity method achieved satisfactory results. Practical implications - Hierarchical structures that are found in subject directories, taxonomies, classification systems, and other classificatory structures play an extremely important role in information organization and information representation. Measuring the similarity between two subject hierarchical structures allows an accurate overarching understanding of the degree to which the two hierarchical structures are similar. Originality/value - Both structural similarity and subject similarity of nodes were considered in the proposed similarity method, and the extent to which the structural similarity impacts on the similarity can be adjusted. In addition, a new evaluation method for a hierarchical structure similarity was presented.

Date

8. 4.2015 16:22:13

Source

Journal of documentation. 70(2014) no.3, S.364-391

0.013604727 = product of:
  0.04081418 = sum of:
    0.04081418 = sum of:
      0.017071007 = weight(_text_:of in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.017071007 = score(doc=2346,freq=26.0), product of:
          0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.2491759 = fieldWeight in 2346, product of:
            5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
              26.0 = termFreq=26.0
            1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2346)
      0.023743173 = weight(_text_:22 in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023743173 = score(doc=2346,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043811057 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2346, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2346)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - Potential and benefits of classification schemes and thesauri in building organizational taxonomies cannot be fully utilized by organizations. Empirical data of building an organizational taxonomy by the top-down approach of using classification schemes and thesauri appear to be lacking. The paper seeks to make a contribution in this regard. Design/methodology/approach - A case study of building an organizational taxonomy was conducted in the information studies domain for the Division of Information Studies at Nanyang Technology University, Singapore. The taxonomy was built by using the Dewey Decimal Classification, the Information Science Taxonomy, two information systems taxonomies, and three thesauri (ASIS&T, LISA, and ERIC). Findings - Classification schemes and thesauri were found to be helpful in creating the structure and categories related to the subject facet of the taxonomy, but organizational community sources had to be consulted and several methods had to be employed. The organizational activities and stakeholders' needs had to be identified to determine the objectives, facets, and the subject coverage of the taxonomy. Main categories were determined by identifying the stakeholders' interests and consulting organizational community sources and domain taxonomies. Category terms were selected from terminologies of classification schemes, domain taxonomies, and thesauri against the stakeholders' interests. Hierarchical structures of the main categories were constructed in line with the stakeholders' perspectives and the navigational role taking advantage of structures/term relationships from classification schemes and thesauri. Categories were determined in line with the concepts and the hierarchical levels. Format of categories were uniformed according to a commonly used standard. The consistency principle was employed to make the taxonomy structure and categories neater. Validation of the draft taxonomy through consultations with the stakeholders further refined the taxonomy. Originality/value - No similar study could be traced in the literature. The steps and methods used in the taxonomy development, and the information studies taxonomy itself, will be helpful for library and information schools and other similar organizations in their effort to develop taxonomies for organizing content and aiding navigation on organizational sites.

Date

7.11.2008 15:22:04

Source

Journal of documentation. 64(2008) no.6, S.842-876

0.011871587 = product of:
  0.03561476 = sum of:
    0.03561476 = product of:
      0.07122952 = sum of:
        0.07122952 = weight(_text_:22 in 3176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07122952 = score(doc=3176,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3176, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3176)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

6. 5.2017 18:46:22

0.007914391 = product of:
  0.023743173 = sum of:
    0.023743173 = product of:
      0.047486346 = sum of:
        0.047486346 = weight(_text_:22 in 4339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047486346 = score(doc=4339,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15341885 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Pages

S.1-22

0.005293495 = product of:
  0.015880484 = sum of:
    0.015880484 = product of:
      0.03176097 = sum of:
        0.03176097 = weight(_text_:of in 4250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03176097 = score(doc=4250,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.46359703 = fieldWeight in 4250, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4250)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reports the results of a survey of 23 published classifications taken from a variety of subject fields

Source

Journal of classification. 9(1992) no.2, S.187-210

0.0052343477 = product of:
  0.015703043 = sum of:
    0.015703043 = product of:
      0.031406086 = sum of:
        0.031406086 = weight(_text_:of in 6993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031406086 = score(doc=6993,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.458417 = fieldWeight in 6993, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6993)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

Source

Journal of library and information science. 17(1992) no.1, S.45-65

0.0050218496 = product of:
  0.015065549 = sum of:
    0.015065549 = product of:
      0.030131098 = sum of:
        0.030131098 = weight(_text_:of in 1806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030131098 = score(doc=1806,freq=36.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.43980673 = fieldWeight in 1806, product of:
              6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
                36.0 = termFreq=36.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1806)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

2 concepts of facets have been used in studies of classification systems: one for systems which take hierarchical structure and the other for systems which take multidimensional structure. Both correspond to 'principles of division'. The concepts of facets in multidimensional structure systems is used for addressing a subject from many aspects so should equate to the broadest principle of division in order to grasp a multiplicity of aspects. The concept of facets used in hierarchical systems addresses only the significance of a coherent set of items. This concept is not distinguished from the principle of division and there is no purpose in introducing a concept of facets into hierarchical systems in addition to the principle of division

Source

Annals of Japan Society of Library Science. 43(1997) no.3, S.117-128

0.0049907546 = product of:
  0.014972264 = sum of:
    0.014972264 = product of:
      0.029944528 = sum of:
        0.029944528 = weight(_text_:of in 5559) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029944528 = score(doc=5559,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.43708345 = fieldWeight in 5559, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5559)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Discusses classification as a central resource of human informational activity and as a central aspect of research for many sciences. Argues that thinking about the background of classification can help improve, or at least clarify, the practical tasks of documentary workers and librarians. Discusses the relationship and gaps between cognitive science and information science, and considers the contributions of epistemology and cognitive psychology; in particular, focuses on the role of the latter in the development of an integrative theory of classification

0.0049790437 = product of:
  0.014937131 = sum of:
    0.014937131 = product of:
      0.029874261 = sum of:
        0.029874261 = weight(_text_:of in 3752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029874261 = score(doc=3752,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.43605784 = fieldWeight in 3752, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3752)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

Enthält folgende Kapitel: (1) Definition, need and purpose of classification, (2) History of library classification, (3) Terminology of classification, (4) Development of a theory of classification, (5) Work of classification in three planes and their interrelationship, (6) Work of classification in idea plane, (7) Verbal plane, (8) Notation, definition, need functions, (9) Multidimensional nature of subjects, (10) Growing universe of subjects: problems and solutions, (11) Postulational approach to classification, (12) Formation of sharpening of isolates, (13) Species of classification schemes, (14) DDC, UDC and CC, (15) Designing the depth schedules of classification, (16) Recent trends in classification

0.0049790437 = product of:
  0.014937131 = sum of:
    0.014937131 = product of:
      0.029874261 = sum of:
        0.029874261 = weight(_text_:of in 1155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029874261 = score(doc=1155,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.43605784 = fieldWeight in 1155, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1155)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Ranganathan's Colon Classification (CC) treats knowledge as a multidimensional structure, enshrining a multiplicity of complex relations. This complexity is manipulated within the CC an the basis of numerous of Ranganathan's contributions to subject analysis, including the modes of formation of subjects; an objective rationale for the arrangement of main classes; the PMEST facet formula, extended by the postulate of rounds and levels; a general dependency principle for collocation of related components in a facet formula, phase relationships between the components of complex interdiscipfnary subjects; the recurrence of an APUPA arrangement throughout the linear ordering of materials; and an absolute syntax of ideas.

Source

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

0.004880361 = product of:
  0.014641082 = sum of:
    0.014641082 = product of:
      0.029282164 = sum of:
        0.029282164 = weight(_text_:of in 1654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029282164 = score(doc=1654,freq=34.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.4274153 = fieldWeight in 1654, product of:
              5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
                34.0 = termFreq=34.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1654)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A classification is a theory of the structure of knowledge. From a discussion of the nature of truth, it is held that scientific knowledge is the only knowledge which can be regarded as true. The method of induction from empirical data is therefore applied to the construction of a classification. Items of knowledge are divided into uniquely definable terms, called isolates, and the relations between them, called operators. It is shown that only four basic operators exist, expressing appurtenance, equivalence, reaction and causation; using symbols for these operators, all subjects can be analysed in a linear form called an analet. With the addition of the permissible permutations of such analets, formed according to simple rules, alphabetical arrangement of the first terms provide a complete, logical subject index. Examples are given, and possible difficulties are considered. A classification can then be constructed by selection of deductive relations, arranged in hierarchical form. The nature of possible classifications is discussed. It is claimed that such an inductively constructed classification is the only true representation of the structure of knowledge, and that these principles provide a simple technique for accurately and fully indexing and classifying any given set of data, with complete flexibility

Source

Journal of documentation. 6(1950), S.83-99

0.004880361 = product of:
  0.014641082 = sum of:
    0.014641082 = product of:
      0.029282164 = sum of:
        0.029282164 = weight(_text_:of in 2687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029282164 = score(doc=2687,freq=34.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.4274153 = fieldWeight in 2687, product of:
              5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
                34.0 = termFreq=34.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2687)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Ontological structures can aid the understanding and modelling of works of art. Ontology of the aesthetic object, and particularly of the literary work, has been analysed by Hartmann and Ingarden. Application of Dahlberg's ontical 'systematifier' model enabled us to organize the entire structure of the Thesaurus of Italian Literature, and to highlight a number of significant aspects of the literary work. After describing the conclusions arising from the experience of compiling the thesaurus, the paper briefly outlines Hartmann's and Ingarden's theories of levels and seeks to identify commonalities between the ontological analysis of the two theories and the conclusions of the thesaurus.

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

0.0047837105 = product of:
  0.014351131 = sum of:
    0.014351131 = product of:
      0.028702263 = sum of:
        0.028702263 = weight(_text_:of in 3004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028702263 = score(doc=3004,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.41895083 = fieldWeight in 3004, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3004)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Indian journal of library studies. 2(1991) no.2, S.163-168

0.0047837105 = product of:
  0.014351131 = sum of:
    0.014351131 = product of:
      0.028702263 = sum of:
        0.028702263 = weight(_text_:of in 6583) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028702263 = score(doc=6583,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.41895083 = fieldWeight in 6583, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6583)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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'

Source

Annals of Japan Society of Library Science. 42(1996) no.2, S.99-110

0.0047837105 = product of:
  0.014351131 = sum of:
    0.014351131 = product of:
      0.028702263 = sum of:
        0.028702263 = weight(_text_:of in 5541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028702263 = score(doc=5541,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.41895083 = fieldWeight in 5541, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5541)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Any classification system should be evaluated with respect to a variety of philosophical and practical concerns. This paper explores several distinct issues: the nature of a work, the value of a statement, the contribution of information science to philosophy, the nature of hierarchy, ethical evaluation, pre- versus postcoordination, the lived experience of librarians, and formalization versus natural language. It evaluates a particular approach to classification in terms of each of these but draws general lessons for philosophical evaluation. That approach to classification emphasizes the free combination of basic concepts representing both real things in the world and the relationships among these; works are also classified in terms of theories, methods, and perspectives applied.

Content

Beitrag in einem Themenheft: 'Exploring Philosophies of Information'.

0.0047346456 = product of:
  0.014203936 = sum of:
    0.014203936 = product of:
      0.028407872 = sum of:
        0.028407872 = weight(_text_:of in 1816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028407872 = score(doc=1816,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.41465375 = fieldWeight in 1816, 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=1816)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The resemblances between the categories of Aristotle and those of Ranganathan are shown. These categories are examined in the light of criticism made by Bertrand Russell and are shown to have no validity. Similar comparisons are made between the relations of Huma and Farradane. Farradane's work is a return to Hume, who is generally acknowledged as one of the founders of the British school of empirical philosophy which continues to Russell and beyond. In Russell's work lies the most promising line of development for information classification and indexing

0.0047346456 = product of:
  0.014203937 = sum of:
    0.014203937 = product of:
      0.028407874 = sum of:
        0.028407874 = weight(_text_:of in 47) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028407874 = score(doc=47,freq=32.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.41465378 = fieldWeight in 47, product of:
              5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
                32.0 = termFreq=32.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=47)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

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