Search (33 results, page 1 of 2)

0.059013415 = product of:
  0.11802683 = sum of:
    0.11802683 = sum of:
      0.0690558 = weight(_text_:theory in 632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0690558 = score(doc=632,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05163523 = queryNorm
          0.32160926 = fieldWeight in 632, 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=632)
      0.048971027 = weight(_text_:22 in 632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048971027 = score(doc=632,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18081778 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05163523 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 632, 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=632)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper maps the concepts "space" and "dimensionality" in classifications, in particular in visualizations hereof, from a historical perspective. After a historical excursion in the domain of classification theory of what in mathematics is known as dimensionality reduction in representations of a single universe of knowledge, its potentiality will be explored for information retrieval and navigation in the multiverse of the World Wide Web.

Date

22. 2.2013 11:31:25

0.030205619 = product of:
  0.060411237 = sum of:
    0.060411237 = product of:
      0.120822474 = sum of:
        0.120822474 = weight(_text_:theory in 1482) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.120822474 = score(doc=1482,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.56269896 = fieldWeight in 1482, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1482)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Colon Classification (CC) is truly the first freely faceted scheme for library classification devised and propagated by Dr. S.R. Ranganathan. The scheme is being taught in theory and practice to the students in most of the LIS schools in India and abroad also. Many manuals, Guide books and Introductory works have been published on CC in the past. But the present work tread a new path in presenting CC to the student, teaching and professional community. The present work Colon Classification: Theory and Practice; A Self Instructional Manual is the result of author's twenty-five years experience of teaching theory and practice of CC to the students of LIS. For the first ime concerted and systematic attempt has been made to present theory and practice of CC in self-instructional mode, keeping in view the requirements of students learners of Open Universities/ Distance Education Institutions in particular. The other singificant and novel features introduced in this manual are: Presenting the scope of each block consisting certain units bollowed by objectives, introduction, sections, sub-sections, self check exercises, glossary and assignment of each unit. It is hoped that all these features will help the users/readers of this manual to understand and grasp quickly, the intricacies involved in theory and practice of CC(6th Edition). The manual is presented in three blocks and twelve units.

0.029902037 = product of:
  0.059804074 = sum of:
    0.059804074 = product of:
      0.11960815 = sum of:
        0.11960815 = weight(_text_:theory in 851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11960815 = score(doc=851,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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).

0.029595342 = product of:
  0.059190683 = sum of:
    0.059190683 = product of:
      0.118381366 = sum of:
        0.118381366 = weight(_text_:theory in 1286) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.118381366 = score(doc=1286,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.55133015 = fieldWeight in 1286, 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=1286)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.029595342 = product of:
  0.059190683 = sum of:
    0.059190683 = product of:
      0.118381366 = sum of:
        0.118381366 = weight(_text_:theory in 4155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.118381366 = score(doc=4155,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.55133015 = fieldWeight in 4155, 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=4155)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.027902756 = product of:
  0.05580551 = sum of:
    0.05580551 = product of:
      0.11161102 = sum of:
        0.11161102 = weight(_text_:theory in 3755) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11161102 = score(doc=3755,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.51979905 = fieldWeight in 3755, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3755)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This entry looks at the origins of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification 2nd edition and the theory on which it is built. The reasons for the decision to revise the classification are examined, as are the influences on classification theory of the mid-twentieth century. The process of revision and construction of schedules using facet analysis is described. The use of BC2 is considered along with some recent development work on thesaural and digital formats.

0.027902756 = product of:
  0.05580551 = sum of:
    0.05580551 = product of:
      0.11161102 = sum of:
        0.11161102 = weight(_text_:theory in 3773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11161102 = score(doc=3773,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.51979905 = fieldWeight in 3773, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3773)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Faceted analytical theory is a widely accepted approach for constructing modern classification schemes and other controlled vocabularies. While the advantages of faceted approach are broadly accepted and understood the actual implementation is coupled with many challenges when it comes to data modelling, management and retrieval. UDC Seminar 2017 revisits faceted analytical theory as one of the most influential methodologies in the development of knowledge organization systems.

0.024662787 = product of:
  0.049325574 = sum of:
    0.049325574 = product of:
      0.09865115 = sum of:
        0.09865115 = weight(_text_:theory in 1854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09865115 = score(doc=1854,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.4594418 = fieldWeight in 1854, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1854)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Introduction into the structure, contents and specifications (especially the Systematifier) of the Information Coding Classification, developed in the seventies and used in many ways by the author and a few others following its publication in 1982. Its theoretical basis is explained consisting in (1) the Integrative Level Theory, following an evolutionary approach of ontical areas, and integrating also on each level the aspects contained in the sequence of the levels, (2) the distinction between categories of form and categories of being, (3) the application of a feature of Systems Theory (namely the element position plan) and (4) the inclusion of a concept theory, distinguishing four kinds of relationships, originated by the kinds of characteristics (which are the elements of concepts to be derived from the statements on the properties of referents of concepts). Its special Subject Groups on each of its nine levels are outlined and the combinatory facilities at certain positions of the Systematifier are shown. Further elaboration and use have been suggested, be it only as a switching language between the six existing universal classification systems at present in use internationally.

0.019730229 = product of:
  0.039460458 = sum of:
    0.039460458 = product of:
      0.078920916 = sum of:
        0.078920916 = weight(_text_:theory in 2789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.078920916 = score(doc=2789,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.36755344 = fieldWeight in 2789, 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=2789)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

S R Ranganathan and Melvil Dewey devised two types of classification schemes viz., faceted and enumerative. Ranganathan's faceted classification scheme is based on postulates, principles and canons. It has a strong theory. While working with the two schemes, similarities are observed. This paper tries to identify and present some relationships.

0.017489653 = product of:
  0.034979306 = sum of:
    0.034979306 = product of:
      0.06995861 = sum of:
        0.06995861 = weight(_text_:22 in 127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06995861 = score(doc=127,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18081778 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 127, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=127)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Zugleich Dissertation Univ. Düsseldorf. - Rez. in: ZfBB. 22(1975) S.53-57 (H.-A. Koch)

0.017439222 = product of:
  0.034878444 = sum of:
    0.034878444 = product of:
      0.06975689 = sum of:
        0.06975689 = weight(_text_:theory in 1856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06975689 = score(doc=1856,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.3248744 = fieldWeight in 1856, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1856)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.017439222 = product of:
  0.034878444 = sum of:
    0.034878444 = product of:
      0.06975689 = sum of:
        0.06975689 = weight(_text_:theory in 4835) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06975689 = score(doc=4835,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.3248744 = fieldWeight in 4835, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4835)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In the early years of the 20th century, Julius Otto Kaiser (1868-1927), a special librarian and indexer of technical literature, developed a method of knowledge organization (KO) known as systematic indexing. Certain elements of the method-its stipulation that all indexing terms be divided into fundamental categories "concretes", "countries", and "processes", which are then to be synthesized into indexing "statements" formulated according to strict rules of citation order-have long been recognized as precursors to key principles of the theory of faceted classification. However, other, less well-known elements of the method may prove no less interesting to practitioners of KO. In particular, two aspects of systematic indexing seem to prefigure current trends in KO: (1) a perspectivist outlook that rejects universal classifications in favor of information organization systems customized to reflect local needs and (2) the incorporation of index terms extracted from source documents into a polyhierarchical taxonomical structure. Kaiser's perspectivism anticipates postmodern theories of KO, while his principled use of polyhierarchy to organize terms derived from the language of source documents provides a potentially fruitful model that can inform current discussions about harvesting natural-language terms, such as tags, and incorporating them into a flexibly structured controlled vocabulary.

0.017439222 = product of:
  0.034878444 = sum of:
    0.034878444 = product of:
      0.06975689 = sum of:
        0.06975689 = weight(_text_:theory in 1395) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06975689 = score(doc=1395,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.3248744 = fieldWeight in 1395, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1395)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper focuses on the discursive formations emerging from the Social Semantic Information Spaces (SSIS) in light of the concept of emergence in the theory of integrative levels. The study aims to identify the opportunities and challenges of incorporating epistemological considerations in the act of acquiring knowledge into the consolidation of knowledge organization and mediation processes and devices in the emergence of phenomena. The goal was to analyze the effects of that concept on the actions of a sample of researchers registered in an emerging research domain in SSIS in order to understand this type of indexing done by the users and communities as a classification of integrating levels. The methodology was established by triangulation through social network analysis, consensus analysis and archaeology of knowledge. It was possible to conclude that there is a collective effort to settle a semantic interoperability model for the labeling of contents based on best practices regarding the description of the objects shared in SSIS.

0.017439222 = product of:
  0.034878444 = sum of:
    0.034878444 = product of:
      0.06975689 = sum of:
        0.06975689 = weight(_text_:theory in 5800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06975689 = score(doc=5800,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.3248744 = fieldWeight in 5800, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5800)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Shiyali Ramamrita Ranganathan's theory of classification spans a number of works over a number of decades. And while he was devoted to solving many problems in the practice of librarianship, and is known as the father of library science in India (Garfield, 1984), his work in classification revolves around one central concern. His classification research addressed the problems that arose from introducing new ideas into a scheme for classification, while maintaining a meaningful hierarchical and systematically arranged order of classes. This is because hierarchical and systematically arranged classes are the defining characteristic of useful classification. To lose this order is to through the addition of new classes is to introduce confusion, if not chaos, and to move toward a useless classification - or at least one that requires complete revision. In the following chapter, I outline the stages, and the elements of those stages, in Ranganathan's thought on classification from 1926-1972, as well as posthumous work that continues his agenda. And while facets figure prominently in all of these stages; but for Ranganathan to achieve his goal, he must continually add to this central feature of his theory of classification. I will close this chapter with an outline of persistent problems that represent research fronts for the field. Chief among these are what to do about scheme change and the open question about the rigor of information modeling in light of semantic web developments.

0.01726395 = product of:
  0.0345279 = sum of:
    0.0345279 = product of:
      0.0690558 = sum of:
        0.0690558 = weight(_text_:theory in 1151) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0690558 = score(doc=1151,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.32160926 = fieldWeight in 1151, 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=1151)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Integrative level classification (ILC) is a research project being developed since 2004 by some members of the Italian chapter of ISKO, also involving cooperation with other researchers. Anyone interested is welcome to contact us at: ilc@mate.unipv.it. Aim of the project is to test application of the theory of integrative levels to knowledge organization (KO). This implies a naturalistic-ontological approach to KO, which is obviously not the only possible approach - actually it even looks to be unfashionable nowadays, although it agrees with current trends towards interdisciplinarity and interrelation between many research fields.

0.014797671 = product of:
  0.029595342 = sum of:
    0.029595342 = product of:
      0.059190683 = sum of:
        0.059190683 = weight(_text_:theory in 3402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059190683 = score(doc=3402,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.27566507 = fieldWeight in 3402, 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=3402)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Enthält die Beiträge: FAIRTHORNE, R.A.: 'Browsing' schemes and 'specialist' schemes; KYLE, B.R.F.: Lessons learned from experience in drafting the Kyle classification; MILLS, J.: Inadequacies of exing general classification schemes; COATES, E.J.: CRG proposals for a new general classification; TOMLINSON, H.: Notes on initial work for NATO classification; TOMLINSON, H.: Report on work for new general classification scheme; TOMLINSON, H.: Expansion of categories using mining terms; TOMLINSON, H.: Relationship between geology and mining; TOMLINSON, H.: Use of categories for sculpture; TOMLINSON, H.: Expansion of categories using terms from physics; TOMLINSON, H.: The distinction between physical and chemical entities; TOMLINSON, H.: Concepts within politics; TOMLINSON, H.: Problems arising from first GCS papers; AUSTIN, D.: The theory of integrative levels reconsidered as the basis of a general classification; AUSTIN, D.: Demonstration: provisional scheme for naturally occuring entities; AUSTIN, D.: Stages in classing and exercises; AUSTIN, D.: Report to the Library Association Research Committee on the use of the NATO grant

0.014797671 = product of:
  0.029595342 = sum of:
    0.029595342 = product of:
      0.059190683 = sum of:
        0.059190683 = weight(_text_:theory in 1806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059190683 = score(doc=1806,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.27566507 = fieldWeight in 1806, 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=1806)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Facets and general categories used in bibliographic classification have been based on a disciplinary organization of knowledge. However, facets and categories of phenomena independent from disciplines can be identified similarly. Phenomena can be classified according to a series of integrative levels (layers), which in turn can be grouped into the major strata of form, matter, life, mind, society and culture, agreeing with Nicolai Hartmann's ontology. Unlike a layer, a stratum is not constituted of elements of the lower ones; rather, it represents the formal pattern of the lower ones, like the horse hoof represents the shape of the steppe. Bibliographic categories can now be seen in the light of level theory: some categories are truly general, while others only appear at a given level, being the realization of a general category in the specific context of the level: these are the facets of that level. In the notation of the Integrative Level Classification project, categories and facets are represented by digits, and displayed in a Web interface with the help of colours.

0.014797671 = product of:
  0.029595342 = sum of:
    0.029595342 = product of:
      0.059190683 = sum of:
        0.059190683 = weight(_text_:theory in 1857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059190683 = score(doc=1857,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.27566507 = fieldWeight in 1857, 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=1857)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Facet analysis is an established methodology for building classifications and subject indexing systems, but has been less rigorously applied to thesauri. The process of creating a compatible thesaurus from the schedules of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification 2nd edition highlights the ways in which the conceptual relationships in a subject field are handled in the two types of retrieval languages. An underlying uniformity of theory is established, and the way in which software can manage the relationships is discussed. The manner of displaying verbal expressions of concepts (vocabulary control) is also considered, but is found to be less well controlled in the classification than in the thesaurus. Nevertheless, there is good reason to think that facet analysis provides a sound basis for structuring a variety of knowledge organization tools.

0.014797671 = product of:
  0.029595342 = sum of:
    0.029595342 = product of:
      0.059190683 = sum of:
        0.059190683 = weight(_text_:theory in 2792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059190683 = score(doc=2792,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.27566507 = fieldWeight in 2792, 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=2792)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Colon Classification (CC), based on dynamic theory of classification saw seven editions from 1928 to 1987. Libraries practising it continued with extensions and additions carried out to meet their needs since it was not revised for long after the 7th edition. Revision requires adding terms in different disciplines, organising them in relation to each other and assigning notation for shelf classification. Use of ICT would help in reviving CC and is essential for regular revision of a classification scheme. The paper explores the possibility for creation of an expert system through the design of Web based Colon Classification. The author explores the possibility by designing a prototype for online revision of Colon Classification in the paper.

0.013991722 = product of:
  0.027983444 = sum of:
    0.027983444 = product of:
      0.055966888 = sum of:
        0.055966888 = weight(_text_:22 in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055966888 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18081778 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5083, 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=5083)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

27. 5.2007 22:19:35