Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.00711892 = product of:
  0.06407028 = sum of:
    0.06407028 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06407028 = score(doc=1138,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14333439 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.44699866 = fieldWeight in 1138, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1138)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

In a changing information environment, we need to reassess each element of bibliographic control, including classification theories and systems. Every classification system is a theoretical construct imposed an "reality." The classificatory relationships that are assumed to be valuable have generally received less attention than the topics included in the systems. Relationships are functions of both the syntactic and semantic axes of classification systems, and both explicit and implicit relationships are discussed. Examples are drawn from a number of different systems, both bibliographic and non-bibliographic, and the cultural warrant (i. e., the sociocultural context) of classification systems is examined. The part-whole relationship is discussed as an example of a universally valid concept that is treated as a component of the cultural warrant of a classification system.

0.005812574 = product of:
  0.052313168 = sum of:
    0.052313168 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052313168 = score(doc=869,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14333439 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 869, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=869)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

James Duff Brown was an influential and energetic librarian in Great Britain in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. His Subject Classification has characteristics that were unusual and idiosyncratic during his own time, but his work deserves recognition as one of the precursors of modern bibliographic classification systems. This article discusses a number of theories and classification practices that Brown developed. In particular, it investigates his views on the order of main classes, on the phenomenon of "concrete" subjects, and on the need for synthesized notations. It traces these ideas briefly into the future through the work of S. R. Ranganathan, the Classification Research Group, and the second edition of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification system. It concludes that Brown's work warrants further study for the light it may shed on current classification theory and practice.

0.005480147 = product of:
  0.049321324 = sum of:
    0.049321324 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 91) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049321324 = score(doc=91,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14333439 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.34409973 = fieldWeight in 91, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=91)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Different types of subdivision may be used throughout the same classification system. This paper presents exploratory research into "wholes", "kinds" and "parts" as they relate to the theory and practice of bibliographic classification. Some problems of consistently identifying different kinds of subdivision and of the ambiguities of their relationships are discussed. Some implications of these issues for dynamism and stability in classification systems are addressed

0.004843811 = product of:
  0.0435943 = sum of:
    0.0435943 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0435943 = score(doc=1856,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14333439 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.036818076 = queryNorm
        0.30414405 = fieldWeight in 1856, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1856)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

During the twentieth century, bibliographic classification theory underwent a structural revolution. The first modern bibliographic classifications were top-down systems that started at the universe of knowledge and subdivided that universe downward to minute subclasses. After the invention of faceted classification by S.R. Ranganathan, the ideal was to build bottom-up classifications that started with the universe of concepts and built upward to larger and larger faceted classes. This ideal has not been achieved, and the two kinds of classification systems are not mutually exclusive. This paper examines the process by which this structural revolution was accomplished by looking at the spread of facet theory after 1924 when Ranganathan attended the School of Librarianship, London, through selected classification textbooks that were published after that date. To this end, the paper examines the role of W.C.B. Sayers as a teacher and author of three editions of The Manual of Classification for Librarians and Bibliographers. Sayers influenced both Ranganathan and the various members of the Classification Research Group (CRG) who were his students. Further, the paper contrasts the methods of evaluating classification systems that arose between Sayers's Canons of Classification in 1915- 1916 and J. Mills's A Modern Outline of Library Classification in 1960 in order to demonstrate the speed with which one kind of classificatory structure was overtaken by another.

0.0013856502 = product of:
  0.012470853 = sum of:
    0.012470853 = product of:
      0.024941705 = sum of:
        0.024941705 = weight(_text_:22 in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024941705 = score(doc=3483,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12893063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036818076 = 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)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Pages

S.19-22