Search (84 results, page 1 of 5)

0.058008205 = product of:
  0.11601641 = sum of:
    0.060088523 = weight(_text_:representation in 2464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060088523 = score(doc=2464,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.3050057 = fieldWeight in 2464, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2464)
    0.055927888 = product of:
      0.08389183 = sum of:
        0.049083903 = weight(_text_:theory in 2464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049083903 = score(doc=2464,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.27566507 = fieldWeight in 2464, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2464)
        0.034807928 = weight(_text_:22 in 2464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034807928 = score(doc=2464,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14994325 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2464, 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=2464)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

A fascinating, broad-ranging article about classification, knowledge, and how they relate. Hierarchies, trees, paradigms (a two-dimensional classification that can look something like a spreadsheet), and facets are covered, with descriptions of how they work and how they can be used for knowledge discovery and creation. Kwasnick outlines how to make a faceted classification: choose facets, develop facets, analyze entities using the facets, and make a citation order. Facets are useful for many reasons: they do not require complete knowledge of the entire body of material; they are hospitable, flexible, and expressive; they do not require a rigid background theory; they can mix theoretical structures and models; and they allow users to view things from many perspectives. Facets do have faults: it can be hard to pick the right ones; it is hard to show relations between them; and it is difficult to visualize them. The coverage of the other methods is equally thorough and there is much to consider for anyone putting a classification on the web.

Source

Library trends. 48(1999) no.1, S.22-47

0.04834298 = product of:
  0.09668596 = sum of:
    0.084978 = weight(_text_:representation in 2651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.084978 = score(doc=2651,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.4313432 = fieldWeight in 2651, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2651)
    0.011707964 = product of:
      0.035123892 = sum of:
        0.035123892 = weight(_text_:29 in 2651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035123892 = score(doc=2651,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15062225 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 2651, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2651)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The paper analyses the importance of data presentation and modelling and its role in improving the management, use and exchange of analytico-synthetic classifications in automated systems. Inefficiencies, in this respect, hinder the automation of classification systems that offer the possibility of building compound index/search terms. The lack of machine readable data expressing the semantics and structure of a classification vocabulary has negative effects on information management and retrieval, thus restricting the potential of both automated systems and classifications themselves. The authors analysed the data representation structure of three general analytico-synthetic classification systems (BC2-Bliss Bibliographic Classification; BSO-Broad System of Ordering; UDC-Universal Decimal Classification) and put forward some core requirements for classification data representation

Date

29. 8.2004 14:20:40

0.047864325 = product of:
  0.09572865 = sum of:
    0.08011803 = weight(_text_:representation in 2085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08011803 = score(doc=2085,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.40667427 = fieldWeight in 2085, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2085)
    0.015610619 = product of:
      0.046831857 = sum of:
        0.046831857 = weight(_text_:29 in 2085) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046831857 = score(doc=2085,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15062225 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 2085, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2085)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Pages

S.29-37

Source

Classification research for knowledge representation and organization. Proc. 5th Int. Study Conf. on Classification Research, Toronto, Canada, 24.-28.6.1991. Ed. by N.J. Williamson u. M. Hudon

0.041985154 = product of:
  0.08397031 = sum of:
    0.040059015 = weight(_text_:representation in 2047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040059015 = score(doc=2047,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.20333713 = fieldWeight in 2047, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2047)
    0.043911293 = product of:
      0.06586694 = sum of:
        0.054264296 = weight(_text_:theory in 2047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054264296 = score(doc=2047,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.3047592 = fieldWeight in 2047, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2047)
        0.011602643 = weight(_text_:22 in 2047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011602643 = score(doc=2047,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14994325 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 2047, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2047)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

2. 1.2004 10:35:22

Footnote

Rez. in: Knowledge organization 30(2003) no.1, S.40-42 (J.-E. Mai): "Introduction: This is a collection of papers presented at the National Seminar an Classification in the Digital Environment held in Bangalore, India, an August 9-11 2001. The collection contains 18 papers dealing with various issues related to knowledge organization and classification theory. The issue of transferring the knowledge, traditions, and theories of bibliographic classification to the digital environment is an important one, and I was excited to learn that proceedings from this seminar were available. Many of us experience frustration an a daily basis due to poorly constructed Web search mechanisms and Web directories. As a community devoted to making information easily accessible we have something to offer the Web community and a seminar an the topic was indeed much needed. Below are brief summaries of the 18 papers presented at the seminar. The order of the summaries follows the order of the papers in the proceedings. The titles of the paper are given in parentheses after the author's name. AHUJA and WESLEY (From "Subject" to "Need": Shift in Approach to Classifying Information an the Internet/Web) argue that traditional bibliographic classification systems fall in the digital environment. One problem is that bibliographic classification systems have been developed to organize library books an shelves and as such are unidimensional and tied to the paper-based environment. Another problem is that they are "subject" oriented in the sense that they assume a relatively stable universe of knowledge containing basic and fixed compartments of knowledge that can be identified and represented. Ahuja and Wesley suggest that classification in the digital environment should be need-oriented instead of subjectoriented ("One important link that binds knowledge and human being is his societal need. ... Hence, it will be ideal to organise knowledge based upon need instead of subject." (p. 10)).
AHUJA and SATIJA (Relevance of Ranganathan's Classification Theory in the Age of Digital Libraries) note that traditional bibliographic classification systems have been applied in the digital environment with only limited success. They find that the "inherent flexibility of electronic manipulation of documents or their surrogates should allow a more organic approach to allocation of new subjects and appropriate linkages between subject hierarchies." (p. 18). Ahija and Satija also suggest that it is necessary to shift from a "subject" focus to a "need" focus when applying classification theory in the digital environment. They find Ranganathan's framework applicable in the digital environment. Although Ranganathan's focus is "subject oriented and hence emphasise the hierarchical and linear relationships" (p. 26), his framework "can be successfully adopted with certain modifications ... in the digital environment." (p. 26). SHAH and KUMAR (Model for System Unification of Geographical Schedules (Space Isolates)) report an a plan to develop a single schedule for geographical Subdivision that could be used across all classification systems. The authors argue that this is needed in order to facilitate interoperability in the digital environment. SAN SEGUNDO MANUEL (The Representation of Knowledge as a Symbolization of Productive Electronic Information) distills different approaches and definitions of the term "representation" as it relates to representation of knowledge in the library and information science literature and field. SHARADA (Linguistic and Document Classification: Paradigmatic Merger Possibilities) suggests the development of a universal indexing language. The foundation for the universal indexing language is Chomsky's Minimalist Program and Ranganathan's analytico-synthetic classification theory; Acording to the author, based an these approaches, it "should not be a problem" (p. 62) to develop a universal indexing language.
SELVI (Knowledge Classification of Digital Information Materials with Special Reference to Clustering Technique) finds that it is essential to classify digital material since the amount of material that is becoming available is growing. Selvi suggests using automated classification to "group together those digital information materials or documents that are "most similar" (p. 65). This can be attained by using Cluster analysis methods. PRADHAN and THULASI (A Study of the Use of Classification and Indexing Systems by Web Resource Directories) compare and contrast the classificatory structures of Google, Yahoo, and Looksmart's directories and compare the directories to Dewey Decimal Classification, Library of Congress Classification and Colon Classification's classificatory structures. They find differentes between the directories' and the bibliographic classification systems' classificatory structures and principles. These differentes stem from the fact that bibliographic classification systems are used to "classify academic resources for the research community" (p. 83) and directories "aim to categorize a wider breath of information groups, entertainment, recreation, govt. information, commercial information" (p. 83). NEELAMEGHAN (Hierarchy, Hierarchical Relation and Hierarchical Arrangement) reviews the concept of hierarchy and the formation of hierarchical structures across a variety of domains. NEELAMEGHAN and PRADAD (Digitized Schemes for Subject Classification and Thesauri: Complementary Roles) demonstrate how thesaural relationships (NT, BT, and RT) can be applied to a classification scheme, the Colon Classification in this Gase. NEELAMEGHAN and ASUNDI (Metadata Framework for Describing Embodied Knowledge and Subject Content) propose to use the Generalized Facet Structure framework which is based an Ranganathan's General Theory of Knowledge Classification as a framework for describing the content of documents in a metadata element set for the representation of web documents. CHUDAMANI (Classified Catalogue as a Tool for Subject Based Information Retrieval in both Traditional and Electronic Library Environment) explains why the classified catalogue is superior to the alphabetic cata logue and argues that the same is true in the digital environment.
PARAMESWARAN (Classification and Indexing: Impact of Classification Theory an PRECIS) reviews the PRECIS system and finds that "it Gould not escape from the impact of the theory of classification" (p. 131). The author further argues that the purpose of classification and subject indexing is the same and that both approaches depends an syntax. This leads to the conclusion that "there is an absolute syntax as the Indian theory of classification points out" (p. 131). SATYAPAL and SANJIVINI SATYAPAL (Classifying Documents According to Postulational Approach: 1. SA TSAN- A Computer Based Learning Package) and SATYAPAL and SANJIVINI SATYAPAL (Classifying Documents According to Postulational Approach: 2. Semi-Automatic Synthesis of CC Numbers) present an application to automate classification using a facet classification system, in this Gase, the Colon Classification system. GAIKAIWARI (An Interactive Application for Faceted Classification Systems) presents an application, called SRR, for managing and using a faceted classification scheme in a digital environment. IYER (Use of Instructional Technology to Support Traditional Classroom Learning: A Case Study) describes a course an "Information and Knowledge Organization" that she teaches at the University at Albany (SUNY). The course is a conceptual course that introduces the student to various aspects of knowledge organization. GOPINATH (Universal Classification: How can it be used?) lists fifteen uses of universal classifications and discusses the entities of a number of disciplines. GOPINATH (Knowledge Classification: The Theory of Classification) briefly reviews the foundations for research in automatic classification, summarizes the history of classification, and places Ranganathan's thought in the history of classification.
Discussion The proceedings of the National Seminar an Classification in the Digital Environment give some insights. However, the depth of analysis and discussion is very uneven across the papers. Some of the papers have substantive research content while others appear to be notes used in the oral presentation. The treatments of the topics are very general in nature. Some papers have a very limited list of references while others have no bibliography. No index has been provided. The transfer of bibliographic knowledge organization theory to the digital environment is an important topic. However, as the papers at this conference have shown, it is also a difficult task. Of the 18 papers presented at this seminar an classification in the digital environment, only 4-5 papers actually deal directly with this important topic. The remaining papers deal with issues that are more or less relevant to classification in the digital environment without explicitly discussing the relation. The reason could be that the authors take up issues in knowledge organization that still need to be investigated and clarified before their application in the digital environment can be considered. Nonetheless, one wishes that the knowledge organization community would discuss the application of classification theory in the digital environment in greater detail. It is obvious from the comparisons of the classificatory structures of bibliographic classification systems and Web directories that these are different and that they probably should be different, since they serve different purposes. Interesting questions in the transformation of bibliographic classification theories to the digital environment are: "Given the existing principles in bibliographic knowledge organization, what are the optimum principles for organization of information, irrespectively of context?" and "What are the fundamental theoretical and practical principles for the construction of Web directories?" Unfortunately, the papers presented at this seminar do not attempt to answer or discuss these questions."

0.041819844 = product of:
  0.08363969 = sum of:
    0.07010327 = weight(_text_:representation in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07010327 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.35583997 = fieldWeight in 57, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=57)
    0.013536418 = product of:
      0.04060925 = sum of:
        0.04060925 = weight(_text_:22 in 57) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04060925 = score(doc=57,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14994325 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 57, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=57)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Conceptual Knowledge Markup Language (CKML), an application of XML, is a new standard being promoted for the specification of online conceptual knowledge (Kent and Shrivastava, 1998). CKML follows the philosophy of Conceptual Knowledge Processing (Wille, 1982), a principled approach to knowledge representation and data analysis, which advocates the development of methodologies and techniques to support people in their rational thinking, judgement and actions. CKML was developed and is being used in the WAVE networked information discovery and retrieval system (Kent and Neuss, 1994) as a standard for the specification of conceptual knowledge

Date

30.12.2001 16:22:41

0.034677878 = product of:
  0.069355756 = sum of:
    0.050073773 = weight(_text_:representation in 2480) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050073773 = score(doc=2480,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.25417143 = fieldWeight in 2480, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2480)
    0.01928198 = product of:
      0.057845935 = sum of:
        0.057845935 = weight(_text_:theory in 2480) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057845935 = score(doc=2480,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.3248744 = fieldWeight in 2480, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2480)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Three pre-web articles about using hypertext for knowledge representation. Duncan discusses how to use graphical, hypertext displays (she used Xerox PARC's NoteCards on a Xerox 1186 workstation) along with concept maps and facet analysis, a combination that would now be done with topic maps. The screen shots of her graphical displays are quite interesting. Her interest in facets is in how to use them to show things to different people in different ways, for example, so that experts can enter knowledge into a system in one way while novices can see it in another. Duncan found that facet labels (e.g. Process and Product) prompted the expert to think of related concepts when inputting data, and made navigation easier for users. Facets can be joined together, e.g. "Agents (causing) Process," leading to a "reasoning system." She is especially interested in how to show relstionships between two things: e.g., A causes B, A uses B, A occurs in B. This is an important question in facet theory, but probably not worth worrying about in a small online classification where the relations are fixed and obvious. These articles may be difficult to find, in which case the reader can find a nice sumary in the next article, by Ellis and Vasconcelos (2000). Anyone interested in tracing the history of facets and hypertext will, however, want to see the originals.

Source

Hypertext: Theory into practice. Ed.: Ray McAleese

0.032228656 = product of:
  0.06445731 = sum of:
    0.056652002 = weight(_text_:representation in 3945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056652002 = score(doc=3945,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.28756213 = fieldWeight in 3945, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3945)
    0.0078053097 = product of:
      0.023415929 = sum of:
        0.023415929 = weight(_text_:29 in 3945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023415929 = score(doc=3945,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15062225 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 3945, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3945)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose - This research project aims to provide a new visual representation of the Artefacts Canada digital collection, as well as a means for users to browse this content. Artefacts Canada Humanities is a database containing approximately 3.5 million records describing the different collections of Canadian museums. Design/methodology/approach - A four-step methodology was adopted for the development of the faceted taxonomy model. First, a best practice review consisting of an extensive analysis of existing terminology standards in museum communities and public web interfaces of large cultural organizations was performed. The second step of the methodology entailed a domain analysis; this involved extracting and comparing relevant concepts from terminological authoritative sources. The third step proceeded to term clustering and entity listing,which involved the breaking-up of the taxonomy domains into potential facets. An incremental user testing was also realized in order to validate and refine the taxonomy components (facets, values, and relationships). Findings - The project resulted in a bilingual and expandable vocabulary structure that will further be used to describe the Artefacts Canada database records. The new taxonomy simplifies the representation of complex content by grouping objects into similar facets to classify all records of the Artefacts Canada database. The user-friendly bilingual taxonomy provides worldwide visitors with the means to better access Canadian virtual museum collections. Originality/value - Few methodological tools are available for museums which wish to adopt a faceted approach in the development of their web sites. For practitioners, the methodology developed within this project is a direct contribution to support web site development of large cultural organizations.

Date

29. 8.2010 12:31:55

0.031854097 = product of:
  0.06370819 = sum of:
    0.050073773 = weight(_text_:representation in 2478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050073773 = score(doc=2478,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.25417143 = fieldWeight in 2478, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2478)
    0.013634419 = product of:
      0.040903255 = sum of:
        0.040903255 = weight(_text_:theory in 2478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040903255 = score(doc=2478,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.2297209 = fieldWeight in 2478, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2478)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Three pre-web articles about using hypertext for knowledge representation. Duncan discusses how to use graphical, hypertext displays (she used Xerox PARC's NoteCards on a Xerox 1186 workstation) along with concept maps and facet analysis, a combination that would now be done with topic maps. The screen shots of her graphical displays are quite interesting. Her interest in facets is in how to use them to show things to different people in different ways, for example, so that experts can enter knowledge into a system in one way while novices can see it in another. Duncan found that facet labels (e.g. Process and Product) prompted the expert to think of related concepts when inputting data, and made navigation easier for users. Facets can be joined together, e.g. "Agents (causing) Process," leading to a "reasoning system." She is especially interested in how to show relstionships between two things: e.g., A causes B, A uses B, A occurs in B. This is an important question in facet theory, but probably not worth worrying about in a small online classification where the relations are fixed and obvious. These articles may be difficult to find, in which case the reader can find a nice sumary in the next article, by Ellis and Vasconcelos (2000). Anyone interested in tracing the history of facets and hypertext will, however, want to see the originals.

0.031854097 = product of:
  0.06370819 = sum of:
    0.050073773 = weight(_text_:representation in 2481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050073773 = score(doc=2481,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.25417143 = fieldWeight in 2481, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2481)
    0.013634419 = product of:
      0.040903255 = sum of:
        0.040903255 = weight(_text_:theory in 2481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040903255 = score(doc=2481,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.2297209 = fieldWeight in 2481, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2481)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Three pre-web articles about using hypertext for knowledge representation. Duncan discusses how to use graphical, hypertext displays (she used Xerox PARC's NoteCards on a Xerox 1186 workstation) along with concept maps and facet analysis, a combination that would now be done with topic maps. The screen shots of her graphical displays are quite interesting. Her interest in facets is in how to use them to show things to different people in different ways, for example, so that experts can enter knowledge into a system in one way while novices can see it in another. Duncan found that facet labels (e.g. Process and Product) prompted the expert to think of related concepts when inputting data, and made navigation easier for users. Facets can be joined together, e.g. "Agents (causing) Process," leading to a "reasoning system." She is especially interested in how to show relstionships between two things: e.g., A causes B, A uses B, A occurs in B. This is an important question in facet theory, but probably not worth worrying about in a small online classification where the relations are fixed and obvious. These articles may be difficult to find, in which case the reader can find a nice sumary in the next article, by Ellis and Vasconcelos (2000). Anyone interested in tracing the history of facets and hypertext will, however, want to see the originals.

0.028329153 = product of:
  0.056658305 = sum of:
    0.042489 = weight(_text_:representation in 2072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042489 = score(doc=2072,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.2156716 = fieldWeight in 2072, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2072)
    0.014169304 = product of:
      0.04250791 = sum of:
        0.04250791 = weight(_text_:theory in 2072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04250791 = score(doc=2072,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.23873296 = fieldWeight in 2072, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2072)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This volume deals with both theoretical and empirical research in classification and encompasses universal classification systems, special classification systems, thesauri and the place of classification in a broad spectrum of document and information systems. Papers fall into one or three major areas as follows: 1) general principles and policies 2) structure and logic in classification; and empirical investigation; classification in the design of various types of document/information systems. The papers originate from the ISCCR '91 conference and have been selected according to the following criteria: relevance to the conference theme; importance of the topic in the representation and organization of knowledge; quality; and originality in terms of potential contribution to research and new knowledge.

Content

Enthält die Beiträge: SVENONIUS, E.: Classification: prospects, problems, and possibilities; BEALL, J.: Editing the Dewey Decimal Classification online: the evolution of the DDC database; BEGHTOL, C.: Toward a theory of fiction analysis for information storage and retrieval; CRAVEN, T.C.: Concept relation structures and their graphic display; FUGMANN, R.: Illusory goals in information science research; GILCHRIST, A.: UDC: the 1990's and beyond; GREEN, R.: The expression of syntagmatic relationships in indexing: are frame-based index languages the answer?; HUMPHREY, S.M.: Use and management of classification systems for knowledge-based indexing; MIKSA, F.L.: The concept of the universe of knowledge and the purpose of LIS classification; SCOTT, M. u. A.F. FONSECA: Methodology for functional appraisal of records and creation of a functional thesaurus; ALBRECHTSEN, H.: PRESS: a thesaurus-based information system for software reuse; AMAESHI, B.: A preliminary AAT compatible African art thesaurus; CHATTERJEE, A.: Structures of Indian classification systems of the pre-Ranganathan era and their impact on the Colon Classification; COCHRANE, P.A.: Indexing and searching thesauri, the Janus or Proteus of information retrieval; CRAVEN, T.C.: A general versus a special algorithm in the graphic display of thesauri; DAHLBERG, I.: The basis of a new universal classification system seen from a philosophy of science point of view: DRABENSTOTT, K.M., RIESTER, L.C. u. B.A.DEDE: Shelflisting using expert systems; FIDEL, R.: Thesaurus requirements for an intermediary expert system; GREEN, R.: Insights into classification from the cognitive sciences: ramifications for index languages; GROLIER, E. de: Towards a syndetic information retrieval system; GUENTHER, R.: The USMARC format for classification data: development and implementation; HOWARTH, L.C.: Factors influencing policies for the adoption and integration of revisions to classification schedules; HUDON, M.: Term definitions in subject thesauri: the Canadian literacy thesaurus experience; HUSAIN, S.: Notational techniques for the accomodation of subjects in Colon Classification 7th edition: theoretical possibility vis-à-vis practical need; KWASNIK, B.H. u. C. JORGERSEN: The exploration by means of repertory grids of semantic differences among names of official documents; MICCO, M.: Suggestions for automating the Library of Congress Classification schedules; PERREAULT, J.M.: An essay on the prehistory of general categories (II): G.W. Leibniz, Conrad Gesner; REES-POTTER, L.K.: How well do thesauri serve the social sciences?; REVIE, C.W. u. G. SMART: The construction and the use of faceted classification schema in technical domains; ROCKMORE, M.: Structuring a flexible faceted thsaurus record for corporate information retrieval; ROULIN, C.: Sub-thesauri as part of a metathesaurus; SMITH, L.C.: UNISIST revisited: compatibility in the context of collaboratories; STILES, W.G.: Notes concerning the use chain indexing as a possible means of simulating the inductive leap within artificial intelligence; SVENONIUS, E., LIU, S. u. B. SUBRAHMANYAM: Automation in chain indexing; TURNER, J.: Structure in data in the Stockshot database at the National Film Board of Canada; VIZINE-GOETZ, D.: The Dewey Decimal Classification as an online classification tool; WILLIAMSON, N.J.: Restructuring UDC: problems and possibilies; WILSON, A.: The hierarchy of belief: ideological tendentiousness in universal classification; WILSON, B.F.: An evaluation of the systematic botany schedule of the Universal Decimal Classification (English full edition, 1979); ZENG, L.: Research and development of classification and thesauri in China; CONFERENCE SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

LCSH

Knowledge, Theory of / Congresses

Subject

Knowledge, Theory of / Congresses

0.025036886 = product of:
  0.100147545 = sum of:
    0.100147545 = weight(_text_:representation in 2703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.100147545 = score(doc=2703,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.50834286 = fieldWeight in 2703, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2703)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper discusses two inter-related themes: the retrieval potential of faceted thesauri and XML representations of fundamental facets. Initial findings are discussed from the ongoing 'FACET' project, in collaboration with the National Museum of Science and Industry. The work discussed seeks to take advantage of the structure afforded by faceted systems for multi-term queries and flexible matching, focusing in this paper an the Art and Architecture Thesaurus. A multi-term matching function yields ranked results with partial matches via semantic term expansion, based an a measure of distance over the semantic index space formed by thesaurus relationships. Our intention is to drive the system from general representations and a common query structure and interface. To this end, we are developing an XML representation based an work by the Classification Research Group an fundamental facets or categories. The XML representation maps categories to particular thesauri and hierarchies. The system interface, which is configured by the mapping, incorporates a thesaurus browser with navigation history together with a term search facility and drag and drop query builder.

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

0.023310607 = product of:
  0.09324243 = sum of:
    0.09324243 = product of:
      0.13986364 = sum of:
        0.070247784 = weight(_text_:29 in 6040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.070247784 = score(doc=6040,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15062225 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.46638384 = fieldWeight in 6040, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6040)
        0.069615856 = weight(_text_:22 in 6040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.069615856 = score(doc=6040,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14994325 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6040, 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=6040)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:42:47

Source

International cataloguing and bibliographic control. 29(2000) no.3, S.45-48

0.020265594 = product of:
  0.08106238 = sum of:
    0.08106238 = product of:
      0.121593565 = sum of:
        0.08098431 = weight(_text_:theory in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08098431 = score(doc=2509,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.45482418 = fieldWeight in 2509, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2509)
        0.04060925 = weight(_text_:22 in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04060925 = score(doc=2509,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14994325 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2509, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2509)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Edited version of a report to the Australian Library and Information Association on the Conference on classification theory in the computer age, Albany, New York, 18-19 Nov 88, and on the meeting of the Dewey Editorial Policy Committee which preceded it. The focus of the Editorial Policy Committee Meeting lay in the following areas: browsing; potential for improved subject access; system design; potential conflict between shelf location and information retrieval; and users. At the Conference on classification theory in the computer age the following papers were presented: Applications of artificial intelligence to bibliographic classification, by Irene Travis; Automation and classification, By Elaine Svenonious; Subject classification and language processing for retrieval in large data bases, by Diana Scott; Implications for information processing, by Carol Mandel; and implications for information science education, by Richard Halsey.

Date

8.11.1995 11:52:22

0.020029508 = product of:
  0.08011803 = sum of:
    0.08011803 = weight(_text_:representation in 2101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08011803 = score(doc=2101,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.40667427 = fieldWeight in 2101, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2101)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Classification research for knowledge representation and organization. Proc. 5th Int. Study Conf. on Classification Research, Toronto, Canada, 24.-28.6.1991. Ed. by N.J. Williamson u. M. Hudon

0.020029508 = product of:
  0.08011803 = sum of:
    0.08011803 = weight(_text_:representation in 2108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08011803 = score(doc=2108,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.40667427 = fieldWeight in 2108, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2108)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Classification research for knowledge representation and organization. Proc. 5th Int. Study Conf. on Classification Research, Toronto, Canada, 24.-28.6.1991. Ed. by N.J. Williamson u. M. Hudon

0.020029508 = product of:
  0.08011803 = sum of:
    0.08011803 = weight(_text_:representation in 2115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08011803 = score(doc=2115,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.40667427 = fieldWeight in 2115, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2115)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Classification research for knowledge representation and organization. Proc. 5th Int. Study Conf. on Classification Research, Toronto, Canada, 24.-28.6.1991. Ed. by N.J. Williamson u. M. Hudon

0.020029508 = product of:
  0.08011803 = sum of:
    0.08011803 = weight(_text_:representation in 2996) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08011803 = score(doc=2996,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.40667427 = fieldWeight in 2996, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2996)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Classification research for knowledge representation and organization. Proc. 5th Int. Study Conf. on Classification Research, Toronto, Canada, 24.-28.6.1991. Ed. by N.J. Williamson u. M. Hudon

0.016373739 = product of:
  0.065494955 = sum of:
    0.065494955 = product of:
      0.09824243 = sum of:
        0.057264555 = weight(_text_:theory in 2634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057264555 = score(doc=2634,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.32160926 = fieldWeight in 2634, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2634)
        0.040977873 = weight(_text_:29 in 2634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040977873 = score(doc=2634,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15062225 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 2634, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2634)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

A preliminary, purposive survey of definitions and current applications of facet analytical theory (FA) is used to develop a framework for the analysis of Websites. This set of guidelines may well serve to highlight commonalities and differences among FA applications an the Web. Rather than identifying FA as the terrain of a particular interest group, the goal is to explore current practices, uncover common misconceptions, extend understanding, and highlight developments that augment the traditional practice of FA and faceted classification (FC).

Date

29. 8.2004 9:42:50

0.015022131 = product of:
  0.060088523 = sum of:
    0.060088523 = weight(_text_:representation in 2114) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060088523 = score(doc=2114,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.3050057 = fieldWeight in 2114, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2114)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Classification research for knowledge representation and organization. Proc. 5th Int. Study Conf. on Classification Research, Toronto, Canada, 24.-28.6.1991. Ed. by N.J. Williamson u. M. Hudon

0.015022131 = product of:
  0.060088523 = sum of:
    0.060088523 = weight(_text_:representation in 2696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060088523 = score(doc=2696,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.3050057 = fieldWeight in 2696, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2696)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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