Search (133 results, page 1 of 7)

  • × theme_ss:"Klassifikationstheorie: Elemente / Struktur"
  1. Gopinath, M.A.: Ranganathan's theory of facet analysis and knowledge representation (1992) 0.10 
    0.1019331 = product of:
  0.2038662 = sum of:
    0.16023606 = weight(_text_:representation in 6133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16023606 = score(doc=6133,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.81334853 = fieldWeight in 6133, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6133)
    0.043630138 = product of:
      0.13089041 = sum of:
        0.13089041 = weight(_text_:theory in 6133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13089041 = score(doc=6133,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.7351069 = fieldWeight in 6133, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6133)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
  2. Grimaldi, T.: ¬L'indicizzazione dal punto di vista cognitivo (II) (1996) 0.08 
    0.077484705 = product of:
  0.15496941 = sum of:
    0.08011803 = weight(_text_:representation in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08011803 = score(doc=992,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.40667427 = fieldWeight in 992, 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=992)
    0.07485138 = product of:
      0.11227706 = sum of:
        0.06544521 = weight(_text_:theory in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06544521 = score(doc=992,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.36755344 = fieldWeight in 992, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=992)
        0.046831857 = weight(_text_:29 in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046831857 = score(doc=992,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15062225 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 992, 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=992)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    In relation to indexing, one of the chief implications of cognitive epistemology is the necessity for redefining knowledge representation concepts for information filing and retrieval purposes. Such a redefinition involves abandoning the traditional, hierarchical, closed-structure classification model. Considers the following in detail: a semiotic critique of classification principles; Ranganathan's classification theory; Ranganathan and cognitive epistemology; and some reflections on the DDC and the Bliss Bibliographic Classification
    Date
    14. 7.1996 13:29:45
  3. Tkalac, S.; Mateljan, V.: Neke karakteristike notacijskih shema (1996) 0.07 
    0.06755954 = product of:
  0.13511908 = sum of:
    0.113304004 = weight(_text_:representation in 655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.113304004 = score(doc=655,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.57512426 = fieldWeight in 655, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=655)
    0.021815069 = product of:
      0.06544521 = sum of:
        0.06544521 = weight(_text_:theory in 655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06544521 = score(doc=655,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.36755344 = fieldWeight in 655, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=655)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Presents a short review of fundamental knowledge representation methods: logical, graphical, structured and procedural notational schemes. Special attention is given to notational schemes' classifications and the characteristics on which classifications were done. Knowledge representation is one of the central problems in artificial intelligence, but a complete theory of it does not exist, and it remains a set of methods that are used, with more or less success, in attempts to solve a given problem. The characteristics of knowledge schemes play a significant role
  4. Kwasnik, B.H.: ¬The role of classification in knowledge representation (1999) 0.06 
    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
  5. Qin, J.: Evolving paradigms of knowledge representation and organization : a comparative study of classification, XML/DTD and ontology (2003) 0.06 
    0.056860644 = product of:
  0.11372129 = sum of:
    0.10598619 = weight(_text_:representation in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10598619 = score(doc=2763,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.5379795 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
    0.0077350955 = product of:
      0.023205286 = sum of:
        0.023205286 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023205286 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14994325 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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
  6. Star, S.L.: Grounded classification : grounded theory and faceted classification (1998) 0.05 
    0.05158249 = product of:
  0.10316498 = sum of:
    0.07010327 = weight(_text_:representation in 851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07010327 = score(doc=851,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.35583997 = fieldWeight in 851, 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=851)
    0.033061706 = product of:
      0.09918512 = sum of:
        0.09918512 = weight(_text_:theory in 851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09918512 = score(doc=851,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.55704355 = fieldWeight in 851, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=851)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Comparison between grounded theory (a qualitative social science research methodology of Glaser and Strauss) and facet classification (Ranganathan)
    Content
    This article compares the qualitative method of grounded theory (GT) with Ranganathan's construction of faceted classifications (FC) in library and information science. Both struggle with a core problem-i.e., the representation of vernacular words and processes, empirically discovered, which will, although ethnographically faithful, be powerful beyond the single instance or case study. The article compares Glaser and Strauss's (1967) work with that of Ranganathan(1950).
  7. Slavic, A.; Cordeiro, M.I.: Core requirements for automation of analytico-synthetic classifications (2004) 0.05 
    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
  8. Poli, R.: Framing information (2003) 0.05 
    0.047864325 = product of:
  0.09572865 = sum of:
    0.08011803 = weight(_text_:representation in 2711) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08011803 = score(doc=2711,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.40667427 = fieldWeight in 2711, 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=2711)
    0.015610619 = product of:
      0.046831857 = sum of:
        0.046831857 = weight(_text_:29 in 2711) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046831857 = score(doc=2711,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15062225 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 2711, 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=2711)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    11. 9.2004 15:29:04
    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
  9. Jacob, E.K.: Augmenting human capabilities : classification as cognitive scaffolding (2003) 0.04 
    0.04459573 = product of:
  0.08919146 = sum of:
    0.07010327 = weight(_text_:representation in 2672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07010327 = score(doc=2672,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.35583997 = fieldWeight in 2672, 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=2672)
    0.019088186 = product of:
      0.057264555 = sum of:
        0.057264555 = weight(_text_:theory in 2672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057264555 = score(doc=2672,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.32160926 = fieldWeight in 2672, 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=2672)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The argument presented here seeks to extend the notion of the classification scheme as a culturally-transmitted tool by emphasizing the cognitive value of the scheme's internal patterns of relationship. lt elaborates an the use of classification as cognitive scaffolding (Jacob, 2001) and amplifies this idea through application of three constructs - constraints, selections and expectations - derived from Luhmann's (1995) theory of social systems.
    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
  10. Farradane, J.E.L.: ¬A scientific theory of classification and indexing and its practical applications (1950) 0.04 
    0.04161345 = product of:
  0.0832269 = sum of:
    0.060088523 = weight(_text_:representation in 1654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060088523 = score(doc=1654,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.3050057 = fieldWeight in 1654, 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=1654)
    0.023138374 = product of:
      0.06941512 = sum of:
        0.06941512 = weight(_text_:theory in 1654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06941512 = score(doc=1654,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.3898493 = fieldWeight in 1654, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1654)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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
  11. Cordeiro, M.I.; Slavic, A.: Data models for knowledge organization tools : evolution and perspectives (2003) 0.04 
    0.035898242 = product of:
  0.071796484 = sum of:
    0.060088523 = weight(_text_:representation in 2632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060088523 = score(doc=2632,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.3050057 = fieldWeight in 2632, 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=2632)
    0.011707964 = product of:
      0.035123892 = sum of:
        0.035123892 = weight(_text_:29 in 2632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035123892 = score(doc=2632,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15062225 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 2632, 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=2632)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    29. 8.2004 9:26:23
    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
  12. Hjoerland, B.: Theories of knowledge organization - theories of knowledge (2017) 0.03 
    0.03471292 = product of:
  0.13885169 = sum of:
    0.13885169 = sum of:
      0.057264555 = weight(_text_:theory in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.057264555 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
            0.042818543 = queryNorm
          0.32160926 = fieldWeight in 3494, 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=3494)
      0.040977873 = weight(_text_:29 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040977873 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15062225 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.042818543 = queryNorm
          0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 3494, 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=3494)
      0.04060925 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04060925 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14994325 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.042818543 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3494, 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=3494)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Pages
    S.22-36
    Source
    Theorie, Semantik und Organisation von Wissen: Proceedings der 13. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und dem 13. Internationalen Symposium der Informationswissenschaft der Higher Education Association for Information Science (HI) Potsdam (19.-20.03.2013): 'Theory, Information and Organization of Knowledge' / Proceedings der 14. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und Natural Language & Information Systems (NLDB) Passau (16.06.2015): 'Lexical Resources for Knowledge Organization' / Proceedings des Workshops der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) auf der SEMANTICS Leipzig (1.09.2014): 'Knowledge Organization and Semantic Web' / Proceedings des Workshops der Polnischen und Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) Cottbus (29.-30.09.2011): 'Economics of Knowledge Production and Organization'. Hrsg. von W. Babik, H.P. Ohly u. K. Weber
  13. Mai, J.-E.: Is classification theory possible? : Rethinking classification research (2003) 0.03 
    0.033388454 = product of:
  0.06677691 = sum of:
    0.040059015 = weight(_text_:representation in 2759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040059015 = score(doc=2759,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.20333713 = fieldWeight in 2759, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2759)
    0.026717894 = product of:
      0.08015368 = sum of:
        0.08015368 = weight(_text_:theory in 2759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08015368 = score(doc=2759,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.4501592 = fieldWeight in 2759, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2759)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    1. Introduction Theoretical context independent explanations of classification could enhance the universality of classification research and make knowledge about classification available to settings other than traditional libraries. There is a tremendous need for constructing classificatory structures in a range of settings many of which are far removed from the environment in which classification theory and research has been practiced in the last century and a half. The construction of classificatory structures an the Internet, intranets, and in knowledge management systems has received some attention lately. The question examined here is whether it is possible to create a single theory of classification that applies to the range of contexts in which classificatory structures are applied. The object of this paper is to question the assumption that bibliographic classification theory can resemble scientific theories. It is argued that the context of any classification influences the use and understanding of the classification to such a degree that the classification cannot be understood separate from its context. Furthermore, the development from being a novice classifier or classificationist to becoming an expert is explored. lt is assumed scientific theories must relate as much to the activity of novices as to the activity of experts and that scientific theories explain both what it is that novices do and what experts do. It is argued that expertise is achieved not through a correct application of a classification theory but through experiences and adjustment to a particular context and that the activities of novices are quite distinct from the activities of experts in that experts draws an the context of the situation and that novices do not. 2. Theory of Classification Langridge (1976) provides an account of the principles of constructing knowledge organization systems and the theoretical underpinnings of different approaches. He identifies four principles that have guided construction of knowledge organization systems: 1) ideological, 2) social purpose, 3) scientific, and 4) the disciplines. The ideological principle organizes knowledge according to an ideology that the knowledge organization system serves. Langridge gives the examples of "the Christian schemes of the Middle Ages and the Soviet scheme which substitutes for the Bible and Christianity the works of Marx and Lenin and the 'religion' of communism" (Langridge, 1976, p. 4-5).
    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
  14. McIlwaine, I.C.: ¬A question of place (2004) 0.03 
    0.029915206 = product of:
  0.059830412 = sum of:
    0.050073773 = weight(_text_:representation in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050073773 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.25417143 = fieldWeight in 2650, 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=2650)
    0.009756638 = product of:
      0.029269911 = sum of:
        0.029269911 = weight(_text_:29 in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029269911 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15062225 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 2650, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2650)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Content
    1. Introduction The representation of place in classification schemes presents a number of problems. This paper examines some of them and presents different ways in which a solution may be sought. Firstly, what is meant by place? The simple answer is a geographical area, large or small. The reality is not so simple. Place, or Topos to Aristotle was more than just an area, it was a state of mind. But even staying an the less philosophical plane, the way in which a place can be expressed is infinitely variable. Toponymy is a well defined field of study, comparable with taxonomy in the biological sciences. It comprehends the proper name by which any geographical entity is known, and part of the world, feature of earth's surface, organic aggregate (reef, forest) an organizational unit (country, borough, diocese), limits of Earth (poles, hemispheres) parts of Earth (oceans, continents), lakes, mountain passes, capital cities or sea parts.
    Date
    29. 8.2004 14:17:11
  15. Dousa, T.M.: Categories and the architectonics of system in Julius Otto Kaiser's method of systematic indexing (2014) 0.03 
    0.029871322 = product of:
  0.059742644 = sum of:
    0.050073773 = weight(_text_:representation in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050073773 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.25417143 = fieldWeight in 1418, 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=1418)
    0.00966887 = product of:
      0.02900661 = sum of:
        0.02900661 = weight(_text_:22 in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02900661 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14994325 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1418, 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=1418)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Categories, or concepts of high generality representing the most basic kinds of entities in the world, have long been understood to be a fundamental element in the construction of knowledge organization systems (KOSs), particularly faceted ones. Commentators on facet analysis have tended to foreground the role of categories in the structuring of controlled vocabularies and the construction of compound index terms, and the implications of this for subject representation and information retrieval. Less attention has been paid to the variety of ways in which categories can shape the overall architectonic framework of a KOS. This case study explores the range of functions that categories took in structuring various aspects of an early analytico-synthetic KOS, Julius Otto Kaiser's method of Systematic Indexing (SI). Within SI, categories not only functioned as mechanisms to partition an index vocabulary into smaller groupings of terms and as elements in the construction of compound index terms but also served as means of defining the units of indexing, or index items, incorporated into an index; determining the organization of card index files and the articulation of the guide card system serving as a navigational aids thereto; and setting structural constraints to the establishment of cross-references between terms. In all these ways, Kaiser's system of categories contributed to the general systematicity of SI.
    Source
    Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik
  16. Zhang, J.; Zeng, M.L.: ¬A new similarity measure for subject hierarchical structures (2014) 0.03 
    0.029871322 = product of:
  0.059742644 = sum of:
    0.050073773 = weight(_text_:representation in 1778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050073773 = score(doc=1778,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.25417143 = fieldWeight in 1778, 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=1778)
    0.00966887 = product of:
      0.02900661 = sum of:
        0.02900661 = weight(_text_:22 in 1778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02900661 = score(doc=1778,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14994325 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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
  17. Classification research for knowledge representation and organization : Proc. of the 5th Int. Study Conf. on Classification Research, Toronto, Canada, 24.-28.6.1991 (1992) 0.03 
    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
  18. Foskett, D.J.: Systems theory and its relevance to documentary classification (2017) 0.03 
    0.027963944 = product of:
  0.111855775 = sum of:
    0.111855775 = product of:
      0.16778366 = sum of:
        0.09816781 = weight(_text_:theory in 3176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09816781 = score(doc=3176,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = queryNorm
            0.55133015 = fieldWeight in 3176, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3176)
        0.069615856 = weight(_text_:22 in 3176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.069615856 = score(doc=3176,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14994325 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042818543 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    6. 5.2017 18:46:22
  19. Bosch, M.: Ontologies, different reasoning strategies, different logics, different kinds of knowledge representation : working together (2006) 0.02 
    0.02478525 = product of:
  0.099141 = sum of:
    0.099141 = weight(_text_:representation in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.099141 = score(doc=166,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.50323373 = fieldWeight in 166, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=166)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The recent experiences in the building, maintenance and reuse of ontologies has shown that the most efficient approach is the collaborative one. However, communication between collaborators such as IT professionals, librarians, web designers and subject matter experts is difficult and time consuming. This is because there are different reasoning strategies, different logics and different kinds of knowledge representation in the applications of Semantic Web. This article intends to be a reference scheme. It uses concise and simple explanations that can be used in common by specialists of different backgrounds working together in an application of Semantic Web.
  20. Green, R.; Panzer, M.: ¬The ontological character of classes in the Dewey Decimal Classification 0.02 
    0.02478525 = product of:
  0.099141 = sum of:
    0.099141 = weight(_text_:representation in 3530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.099141 = score(doc=3530,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042818543 = queryNorm
        0.50323373 = fieldWeight in 3530, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3530)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Classes in the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system function as neighborhoods around focal topics in captions and notes. Topical neighborhoods are generated through specialization and instantiation, complex topic synthesis, index terms and mapped headings, hierarchical force, rules for choosing between numbers, development of the DDC over time, and use of the system in classifying resources. Implications of representation using a formal knowledge representation language are explored.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 123
  • f 3
  • i 3
  • d 2
  • chi 1
  • ru 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 115
  • m 14
  • el 4
  • s 4
  • b 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications