-
McCool, M.; St. Amant, K.: Field dependence and classification : implications for global information systems (2009)
0.09
0.08839768 = product of:
0.17679536 = sum of:
0.018157298 = weight(_text_:information in 2854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018157298 = score(doc=2854,freq=6.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 2854, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2854)
0.10706388 = weight(_text_:united in 2854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10706388 = score(doc=2854,freq=2.0), product of:
0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.433885 = fieldWeight in 2854, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2854)
0.05157419 = product of:
0.10314838 = sum of:
0.10314838 = weight(_text_:states in 2854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10314838 = score(doc=2854,freq=2.0), product of:
0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.42587718 = fieldWeight in 2854, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2854)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(3/6)
- Abstract
- This article describes research designed to assess the interaction between culture and classification. Mounting evidence in cross-cultural psychology has indicated that culture may affect classification, which is an important dimension to global information systems. Data were obtained through three classification tasks, two of which were adapted from recent studies in cross-cultural psychology. Data were collected from 36 participants, 19 from China and 17 from the United States. The results of this research indicate that Chinese participants appear to be more field dependent, which may be related to a cultural preference for relationships instead of categories.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.6, S.1258-1266
-
Quinn, B.: Recent theoretical approaches in classification and indexing (1994)
0.06
0.06043355 = product of:
0.18130066 = sum of:
0.122358724 = weight(_text_:united in 8276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.122358724 = score(doc=8276,freq=2.0), product of:
0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.4958686 = fieldWeight in 8276, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8276)
0.05894193 = product of:
0.11788386 = sum of:
0.11788386 = weight(_text_:states in 8276) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11788386 = score(doc=8276,freq=2.0), product of:
0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.48671678 = fieldWeight in 8276, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8276)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- This article is a selective review of recent studies in classification and indexing theory. A number of important problems are discussed, including subjectivity versus objectivity, theories of indexing, the theoretical role of automation, and theoretical approaches to a universal classification scheme. Interestingly, much of the work appears to have been done outside the United States. After reviewing the theoretical work itself, some possible reasons for the non-American origins of the work are explored
-
Molholt, P.: Qualities of classification schemes for the Information Superhighway (1995)
0.04
0.03992383 = product of:
0.07984766 = sum of:
0.01058955 = weight(_text_:information in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01058955 = score(doc=5562,freq=4.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 5562, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5562)
0.054359984 = weight(_text_:networks in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054359984 = score(doc=5562,freq=2.0), product of:
0.20804176 = queryWeight, product of:
4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.26129362 = fieldWeight in 5562, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5562)
0.0148981325 = product of:
0.029796265 = sum of:
0.029796265 = weight(_text_:22 in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029796265 = score(doc=5562,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5562, 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=5562)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(3/6)
- Footnote
- Paper presented at the 36th Allerton Institute, 23-25 Oct 94, Allerton Park, Monticello, IL: "New Roles for Classification in Libraries and Information Networks: Presentation and Reports"
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 21(1995) no.2, S.19-22
-
Broughton, V.: Faceted classification as a basis for knowledge organization in a digital environment : the Bliss Bibliographic Classification as a model for vocabulary management and the creation of multidimensional knowledge structures (2003)
0.03
0.03358486 = product of:
0.100754574 = sum of:
0.0089855315 = weight(_text_:information in 2631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0089855315 = score(doc=2631,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2631, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2631)
0.09176904 = weight(_text_:united in 2631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09176904 = score(doc=2631,freq=2.0), product of:
0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.37190145 = fieldWeight in 2631, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2631)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- The paper examines the way in which classification schemes can be applied to the organization of digital resources. The case is argued for the particular suitability of schemes based an faceted principles for the organization of complex digital objects. Details are given of a co-operative project between the School of Library Archive & Information Studies, University College London, and the United Kingdom Higher Education gateways Arts and Humanities Data Service and Humbul, in which a faceted knowledge structure is being developed for the indexing and display of digital materials within a new combined humanities portal.
-
Qin, J.: Evolving paradigms of knowledge representation and organization : a comparative study of classification, XML/DTD and ontology (2003)
0.03
0.030416861 = product of:
0.09125058 = sum of:
0.008471641 = weight(_text_:information in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008471641 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
0.082778946 = sum of:
0.05894193 = weight(_text_:states in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05894193 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.24335839 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
0.023837011 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023837011 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = 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(2/6)
- 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
-
Bliss, H.E.: ¬A bibliographic classification : principles and definitions (1985)
0.03
0.030216776 = product of:
0.09065033 = sum of:
0.061179362 = weight(_text_:united in 3621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.061179362 = score(doc=3621,freq=2.0), product of:
0.24675635 = queryWeight, product of:
5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.2479343 = fieldWeight in 3621, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.6101127 = idf(docFreq=439, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3621)
0.029470965 = product of:
0.05894193 = sum of:
0.05894193 = weight(_text_:states in 3621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05894193 = score(doc=3621,freq=2.0), product of:
0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.24335839 = fieldWeight in 3621, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3621)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Henry Evelyn Bliss (1870-1955) devoted several decades of his life to the study of classification and the development of the Bibliographic Classification scheme while serving as a librarian in the College of the City of New York. In the course of the development of the Bibliographic Classification, Bliss developed a body of classification theory published in a number of articles and books, among which the best known are The Organization of Knowledge and the System of the Sciences (1929), Organization of Knowledge in Libraries and the Subject Approach to Books (1933; 2nd ed., 1939), and the lengthy preface to A Bibliographic Classification (Volumes 1-2, 1940; 2nd ed., 1952). In developing the Bibliographic Classification, Bliss carefully established its philosophical and theoretical basis, more so than was attempted by the makers of other classification schemes, with the possible exception of S. R. Ranganathan (q.v.) and his Colon Classification. The basic principles established by Bliss for the Bibliographic Classification are: consensus, collocation of related subjects, subordination of special to general and gradation in specialty, and the relativity of classes and of classification (hence alternative location and alternative treatment). In the preface to the schedules of A Bibliographic Classification, Bliss spells out the general principles of classification as weIl as principles specifically related to his scheme. The first volume of the schedules appeared in 1940. In 1952, he issued a second edition of the volume with a rewritten preface, from which the following excerpt is taken, and with the addition of a "Concise Synopsis," which is also included here to illustrate the principles of classificatory structure. In the excerpt reprinted below, Bliss discusses the correlation between classes, concepts, and terms, as weIl as the hierarchical structure basic to his classification scheme. In his discussion of cross-classification, Bliss recognizes the "polydimensional" nature of classification and the difficulties inherent in the two-dimensional approach which is characteristic of linear classification. This is one of the earliest works in which the multidimensional nature of classification is recognized. The Bibliographic Classification did not meet with great success in the United States because the Dewey Decimal Classification and the Library of Congress Classification were already weIl ensconced in American libraries by then. Nonetheless, it attracted considerable attention in the British Commonwealth and elsewhere in the world. A committee was formed in Britain which later became the Bliss Classification Association. A faceted edition of the scheme has been in preparation under the direction of J. Mills and V. Broughton. Several parts of this new edition, entitled Bliss Bibliographic Classification, have been published.
-
Kashyap, M.M.: Likeness between Ranganathan's postulations based approach to knowledge classification and entity relationship data modelling approach (2003)
0.02
0.018971303 = product of:
0.05691391 = sum of:
0.012707461 = weight(_text_:information in 2045) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012707461 = score(doc=2045,freq=4.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2045, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2045)
0.044206448 = product of:
0.088412896 = sum of:
0.088412896 = weight(_text_:states in 2045) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.088412896 = score(doc=2045,freq=2.0), product of:
0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.3650376 = fieldWeight in 2045, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2045)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- This paper describes the Postulations Based Approach to Facet Classification as articulated by S. R. Ranganathan for knowledge classification and for the design of a facet scheme of library classification, and the Entity-Relationship Data Modelling and Analysis Approach set by Peter Pin-Sen Chen; both further modified by other experts. Efforts have been made to show the parallelism between the two approaches. It points out that, both the theoretical approaches are concerned with the organisation of knowledge or information, and apply almost similar theoretical principles, concepts, and techniques for the design and development of a framework for the organisation of knowledge, information, or data, in their respective domains. It states that both the approaches are complementary and supplementary to each other. The paper also argues that Ranganathan's postulations based approach or analytico-synthetic approach to knowledge classification can be applied for developing efficient data retrieval systems in addition to the data analysis and modelling domain.
-
Hjoerland, B.: Theories of knowledge organization - theories of knowledge (2017)
0.01
0.013004894 = product of:
0.039014682 = sum of:
0.018157298 = weight(_text_:information in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018157298 = score(doc=3494,freq=6.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
0.020857384 = product of:
0.04171477 = sum of:
0.04171477 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04171477 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- 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
-
Connaway, L.S.; Sievert, M.C.: Comparison of three classification systems for information on health insurance (1996)
0.01
0.011939241 = product of:
0.03581772 = sum of:
0.011980709 = weight(_text_:information in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011980709 = score(doc=7242,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 7242, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7242)
0.023837011 = product of:
0.047674023 = sum of:
0.047674023 = weight(_text_:22 in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.047674023 = score(doc=7242,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7242, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7242)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Date
- 22. 4.1997 21:10:19
-
Jacob, E.K.: Proposal for a classification of classifications built on Beghtol's distinction between "Naïve Classification" and "Professional Classification" (2010)
0.01
0.011147052 = product of:
0.033441156 = sum of:
0.015563398 = weight(_text_:information in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015563398 = score(doc=2945,freq=6.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 2945, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2945)
0.017877758 = product of:
0.035755515 = sum of:
0.035755515 = weight(_text_:22 in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035755515 = score(doc=2945,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2945, 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=2945)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Argues that Beghtol's (2003) use of the terms "naive classification" and "professional classification" is valid because they are nominal definitions and that the distinction between these two types of classification points up the need for researchers in knowledge organization to broaden their scope beyond traditional classification systems intended for information retrieval. Argues that work by Beghtol (2003), Kwasnik (1999) and Bailey (1994) offer direction for the development of a classification of classifications based on the pragmatic dimensions of extant classification systems. Bezugnahme auf: Beghtol, C.: Naïve classification systems and the global information society. In: Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine. Würzburg: Ergon Verlag 2004. S.19-22. (Advances in knowledge organization; vol.9)
-
Beghtol, C.: Naïve classification systems and the global information society (2004)
0.01
0.009958006 = product of:
0.02987402 = sum of:
0.014975886 = weight(_text_:information in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014975886 = score(doc=3483,freq=8.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 3483, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3483)
0.0148981325 = product of:
0.029796265 = sum of:
0.029796265 = weight(_text_:22 in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029796265 = score(doc=3483,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3483, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3483)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Classification is an activity that transcends time and space and that bridges the divisions between different languages and cultures, including the divisions between academic disciplines. Classificatory activity, however, serves different purposes in different situations. Classifications for infonnation retrieval can be called "professional" classifications and classifications in other fields can be called "naïve" classifications because they are developed by people who have no particular interest in classificatory issues. The general purpose of naïve classification systems is to discover new knowledge. In contrast, the general purpose of information retrieval classifications is to classify pre-existing knowledge. Different classificatory purposes may thus inform systems that are intended to span the cultural specifics of the globalized information society. This paper builds an previous research into the purposes and characteristics of naïve classifications. It describes some of the relationships between the purpose and context of a naive classification, the units of analysis used in it, and the theory that the context and the units of analysis imply.
- Pages
- S.19-22
- Source
- Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine
-
Zhang, J.; Zeng, M.L.: ¬A new similarity measure for subject hierarchical structures (2014)
0.01
0.009958006 = product of:
0.02987402 = sum of:
0.014975886 = weight(_text_:information in 1778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014975886 = score(doc=1778,freq=8.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 1778, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1778)
0.0148981325 = product of:
0.029796265 = sum of:
0.029796265 = weight(_text_:22 in 1778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029796265 = score(doc=1778,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- 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
-
Wang, Z.; Chaudhry, A.S.; Khoo, C.S.G.: Using classification schemes and thesauri to build an organizational taxonomy for organizing content and aiding navigation (2008)
0.01
0.009255832 = product of:
0.027767494 = sum of:
0.015848989 = weight(_text_:information in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015848989 = score(doc=2346,freq=14.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.20526241 = fieldWeight in 2346, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2346)
0.011918506 = product of:
0.023837011 = sum of:
0.023837011 = weight(_text_:22 in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023837011 = score(doc=2346,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2346, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2346)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Purpose - Potential and benefits of classification schemes and thesauri in building organizational taxonomies cannot be fully utilized by organizations. Empirical data of building an organizational taxonomy by the top-down approach of using classification schemes and thesauri appear to be lacking. The paper seeks to make a contribution in this regard. Design/methodology/approach - A case study of building an organizational taxonomy was conducted in the information studies domain for the Division of Information Studies at Nanyang Technology University, Singapore. The taxonomy was built by using the Dewey Decimal Classification, the Information Science Taxonomy, two information systems taxonomies, and three thesauri (ASIS&T, LISA, and ERIC). Findings - Classification schemes and thesauri were found to be helpful in creating the structure and categories related to the subject facet of the taxonomy, but organizational community sources had to be consulted and several methods had to be employed. The organizational activities and stakeholders' needs had to be identified to determine the objectives, facets, and the subject coverage of the taxonomy. Main categories were determined by identifying the stakeholders' interests and consulting organizational community sources and domain taxonomies. Category terms were selected from terminologies of classification schemes, domain taxonomies, and thesauri against the stakeholders' interests. Hierarchical structures of the main categories were constructed in line with the stakeholders' perspectives and the navigational role taking advantage of structures/term relationships from classification schemes and thesauri. Categories were determined in line with the concepts and the hierarchical levels. Format of categories were uniformed according to a commonly used standard. The consistency principle was employed to make the taxonomy structure and categories neater. Validation of the draft taxonomy through consultations with the stakeholders further refined the taxonomy. Originality/value - No similar study could be traced in the literature. The steps and methods used in the taxonomy development, and the information studies taxonomy itself, will be helpful for library and information schools and other similar organizations in their effort to develop taxonomies for organizing content and aiding navigation on organizational sites.
- Date
- 7.11.2008 15:22:04
- Theme
- Information Resources Management
-
Slavic, A.: On the nature and typology of documentary classifications and their use in a networked environment (2007)
0.01
0.00895443 = product of:
0.026863288 = sum of:
0.0089855315 = weight(_text_:information in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0089855315 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 780, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=780)
0.017877758 = product of:
0.035755515 = sum of:
0.035755515 = weight(_text_:22 in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035755515 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 780, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=780)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Networked orientated standards for vocabulary publishing and exchange and proposals for terminological services and terminology registries will improve sharing and use of all knowledge organization systems in the networked information environment. This means that documentary classifications may also become more applicable for use outside their original domain of application. The paper summarises some characteristics common to documentary classifications and explains some terminological, functional and implementation aspects. The original purpose behind each classification scheme determines the functions that the vocabulary is designed to facilitate. These functions influence the structure, semantics and syntax, scheme coverage and format in which classification data are published and made available. The author suggests that attention should be paid to the differences between documentary classifications as these may determine their suitability for a certain purpose and may impose different requirements with respect to their use online. As we speak, many classifications are being created for knowledge organization and it may be important to promote expertise from the bibliographic domain with respect to building and using classification systems.
- Date
- 22.12.2007 17:22:31
-
Gnoli, C.: Classifying phenomena : part 4: themes and rhemes (2018)
0.01
0.00895443 = product of:
0.026863288 = sum of:
0.0089855315 = weight(_text_:information in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0089855315 = score(doc=4152,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4152, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4152)
0.017877758 = product of:
0.035755515 = sum of:
0.035755515 = weight(_text_:22 in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035755515 = score(doc=4152,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4152, 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=4152)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- This is the fourth in a series of papers on classification based on phenomena instead of disciplines. Together with types, levels and facets that have been discussed in the previous parts, themes and rhemes are further structural components of such a classification. In a statement or in a longer document, a base theme and several particular themes can be identified. Base theme should be cited first in a classmark, followed by particular themes, each with its own facets. In some cases, rhemes can also be expressed, that is new information provided about a theme, converting an abstract statement ("wolves, affected by cervids") into a claim that some thing actually occurs ("wolves are affected by cervids"). In the Integrative Levels Classification rhemes can be expressed by special deictic classes, including those for actual specimens, anaphoras, unknown values, conjunctions and spans, whole universe, anthropocentric favoured classes, and favoured host classes. These features, together with rules for pronounciation, make a classification of phenomena a true language, that may be suitable for many uses.
- Date
- 17. 2.2018 18:22:25
-
Dousa, T.M.: Categories and the architectonics of system in Julius Otto Kaiser's method of systematic indexing (2014)
0.01
0.0074620256 = product of:
0.022386076 = sum of:
0.007487943 = weight(_text_:information in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007487943 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1418, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1418)
0.0148981325 = product of:
0.029796265 = sum of:
0.029796265 = weight(_text_:22 in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029796265 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- 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
-
Broughton, V.: Essential classification (2004)
0.01
0.0069086123 = product of:
0.020725837 = sum of:
0.0059903543 = weight(_text_:information in 2824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0059903543 = score(doc=2824,freq=8.0), product of:
0.0772133 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 2824, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2824)
0.014735483 = product of:
0.029470965 = sum of:
0.029470965 = weight(_text_:states in 2824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029470965 = score(doc=2824,freq=2.0), product of:
0.24220218 = queryWeight, product of:
5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.121679194 = fieldWeight in 2824, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.506572 = idf(docFreq=487, maxDocs=44218)
0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2824)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
- Abstract
- Classification is a crucial skill for all information workers involved in organizing collections, but it is a difficult concept to grasp - and is even more difficult to put into practice. Essential Classification offers full guidance an how to go about classifying a document from scratch. This much-needed text leads the novice classifier step by step through the basics of subject cataloguing, with an emphasis an practical document analysis and classification. It deals with fundamental questions of the purpose of classification in different situations, and the needs and expectations of end users. The novice is introduced to the ways in which document content can be assessed, and how this can best be expressed for translation into the language of specific indexing and classification systems. The characteristics of the major general schemes of classification are discussed, together with their suitability for different classification needs.
- Footnote
- Rez. in: KO 32(2005) no.1, S.47-49 (M. Hudon): "Vanda Broughton's Essential Classification is the most recent addition to a very small set of classification textbooks published over the past few years. The book's 21 chapters are based very closely an the cataloguing and classification module at the School of Library, Archive, and Information studies at University College, London. The author's main objective is clear: this is "first and foremost a book about how to classify. The emphasis throughout is an the activity of classification rather than the theory, the practical problems of the organization of collections, and the needs of the users" (p. 1). This is not a theoretical work, but a basic course in classification and classification scheme application. For this reviewer, who also teaches "Classification 101," this is also a fascinating peek into how a colleague organizes content and structures her course. "Classification is everywhere" (p. 1): the first sentence of this book is also one of the first statements in my own course, and Professor Broughton's metaphors - the supermarket, canned peas, flowers, etc. - are those that are used by our colleagues around the world. The combination of tone, writing style and content display are reader-friendly; they are in fact what make this book remarkable and what distinguishes it from more "formal" textbooks, such as The Organization of Information, the superb text written and recently updated (2004) by Professor Arlene Taylor (2nd ed. Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited, 2004). Reading Essential Classification, at times, feels like being in a classroom, facing a teacher who assures you that "you don't need to worry about this at this stage" (p. 104), and reassures you that, although you now speed a long time looking for things, "you will soon speed up when you get to know the scheme better" (p. 137). This teacher uses redundancy in a productive fashion, and she is not afraid to express her own opinions ("I think that if these concepts are helpful they may be used" (p. 245); "It's annoying that LCC doesn't provide clearer instructions, but if you keep your head and take them one step at a time [i.e. the tables] they're fairly straightforward" (p. 174)). Chapters 1 to 7 present the essential theoretical concepts relating to knowledge organization and to bibliographic classification. The author is adept at making and explaining distinctions: known-item retrieval versus subject retrieval, personal versus public/shared/official classification systems, scientific versus folk classification systems, object versus aspect classification systems, semantic versus syntactic relationships, and so on. Chapters 8 and 9 discuss the practice of classification, through content analysis and subject description. A short discussion of difficult subjects, namely the treatment of unique concepts (persons, places, etc.) as subjects seems a little advanced for a beginners' class.
In Chapter 10, "Controlled indexing languages," Professor Broughton states that a classification scheme is truly a language "since it permits communication and the exchange of information" (p. 89), a Statement with which this reviewer wholly agrees. Chapter 11, however, "Word-based approaches to retrieval," moves us to a different field altogether, offering only a narrow view of the whole world of controlled indexing languages such as thesauri, and presenting disconnected discussions of alphabetical filing, form and structure of subject headings, modern developments in alphabetical subject indexing, etc. Chapters 12 and 13 focus an the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), without even a passing reference to existing subject headings lists in other languages (French RAMEAU, German SWK, etc.). If it is not surprising to see a section on subject headings in a book on classification, the two subjects being taught together in most library schools, the location of this section in the middle of this particular book is more difficult to understand. Chapter 14 brings the reader back to classification, for a discussion of essentials of classification scheme application. The following five chapters present in turn each one of the three major and currently used bibliographic classification schemes, in order of increasing complexity and difficulty of application. The Library of Congress Classification (LCC), the easiest to use, is covered in chapters 15 and 16. The Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) deserves only a one-chapter treatment (Chapter 17), while the functionalities of the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC), which Professor Broughton knows extremely well, are described in chapters 18 and 19. Chapter 20 is a general discussion of faceted classification, on par with the first seven chapters for its theoretical content. Chapter 21, an interesting last chapter on managing classification, addresses down-to-earth matters such as the cost of classification, the need for re-classification, advantages and disadvantages of using print versions or e-versions of classification schemes, choice of classification scheme, general versus special scheme. But although the questions are interesting, the chapter provides only a very general overview of what appropriate answers might be. To facilitate reading and learning, summaries are strategically located at various places in the text, and always before switching to a related subject. Professor Broughton's choice of examples is always interesting, and sometimes even entertaining (see for example "Inside out: A brief history of underwear" (p. 71)). With many examples, however, and particularly those that appear in the five chapters an classification scheme applications, the novice reader would have benefited from more detailed explanations. On page 221, for example, "The history and social influence of the potato" results in this analysis of concepts: Potato - Sociology, and in the UDC class number: 635.21:316. What happened to the "history" aspect? Some examples are not very convincing: in Animals RT Reproduction and Art RT Reproduction (p. 102), the associative relationship is not appropriate as it is used to distinguish homographs and would do nothing to help either the indexer or the user at the retrieval stage.
-
Maniez, J.: ¬Des classifications aux thesaurus : du bon usage des facettes (1999)
0.01
0.005959253 = product of:
0.035755515 = sum of:
0.035755515 = product of:
0.07151103 = sum of:
0.07151103 = weight(_text_:22 in 6404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07151103 = score(doc=6404,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6404, 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=6404)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Date
- 1. 8.1996 22:01:00
-
Maniez, J.: ¬Du bon usage des facettes : des classifications aux thésaurus (1999)
0.01
0.005959253 = product of:
0.035755515 = sum of:
0.035755515 = product of:
0.07151103 = sum of:
0.07151103 = weight(_text_:22 in 3773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07151103 = score(doc=3773,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3773, 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=3773)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Date
- 1. 8.1996 22:01:00
-
Foskett, D.J.: Systems theory and its relevance to documentary classification (2017)
0.01
0.005959253 = product of:
0.035755515 = sum of:
0.035755515 = product of:
0.07151103 = sum of:
0.07151103 = weight(_text_:22 in 3176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07151103 = score(doc=3176,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1540252 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.043984205 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3176, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3176)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
- Date
- 6. 5.2017 18:46:22
