Search (25 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

0.029902037 = 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.

0.024662787 = 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.

0.017439222 = 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.

0.014797671 = 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

0.013991722 = product of:
  0.027983444 = sum of:
    0.027983444 = product of:
      0.055966888 = sum of:
        0.055966888 = weight(_text_:22 in 826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055966888 = score(doc=826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18081778 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 826, 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=826)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

2. 6.2013 18:33:22

0.013951378 = product of:
  0.027902756 = sum of:
    0.027902756 = product of:
      0.05580551 = sum of:
        0.05580551 = weight(_text_:theory in 571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05580551 = score(doc=571,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.25989953 = fieldWeight in 571, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=571)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A native of Germany and a former teacher of languages and music, Julius Otto Kaiser (1868-1927) came to the Philadelphia Commercial Museum to be its librarian in 1896. Faced with the problem of making "information" accessible, he developed a method of indexing he called systematic indexing. The first draft of his scheme, published in 1896-97, was an important landmark in the history of subject analysis. R. K. Olding credits Kaiser with making the greatest single advance in indexing theory since Charles A. Cutter and John Metcalfe eulogizes him by observing that "in sheer capacity for really scientific and logical thinking, Kaiser's was probably the best mind that has ever applied itself to subject indexing." Kaiser was an admirer of "system." By systematic indexing he meant indicating information not with natural language expressions as, for instance, Cutter had advocated, but with artificial expressions constructed according to formulas. Kaiser grudged natural language its approximateness, its vagaries, and its ambiguities. The formulas he introduced were to provide a "machinery for regularising or standardising language" (paragraph 67). Kaiser recognized three categories or "facets" of index terms: (1) terms of concretes, representing things, real or imaginary (e.g., money, machines); (2) terms of processes, representing either conditions attaching to things or their actions (e.g., trade, manufacture); and (3) terms of localities, representing, for the most part, countries (e.g., France, South Africa). Expressions in Kaiser's index language were called statements. Statements consisted of sequences of terms, the syntax of which was prescribed by formula. These formulas specified sequences of terms by reference to category types. Only three citation orders were permitted: a term in the concrete category followed by one in the process category (e.g., Wool-Scouring); (2) a country term followed by a process term (e.g., Brazil - Education); and (3) a concrete term followed by a country term, followed by a process term (e.g., Nitrate-Chile-Trade). Kaiser's system was a precursor of two of the most significant developments in twentieth-century approaches to subject access-the special purpose use of language for indexing, thus the concept of index language, which was to emerge as a generative idea at the time of the second Cranfield experiment (1966) and the use of facets to categorize subject indicators, which was to become the characterizing feature of analytico-synthetic indexing methods such as the Colon classification. In addition to its visionary quality, Kaiser's work is notable for its meticulousness and honesty, as can be seen, for instance, in his observations about the difficulties in facet definition.

Source

Theory of subject analysis: a sourcebook. Ed.: L.M. Chan, et al

0.012331394 = product of:
  0.024662787 = sum of:
    0.024662787 = product of:
      0.049325574 = sum of:
        0.049325574 = weight(_text_:theory in 4826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049325574 = score(doc=4826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.2297209 = fieldWeight in 4826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4826)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Facet analysis is proposed as a general theory of knowledge organization, with an associated methodology that may be applied to the development of terminology tools in a variety of contexts and formats. Faceted classifications originated as a means of representing complexity in semantic content that facilitates logical organization and effective retrieval in a physical environment. This is achieved through meticulous analysis of concepts, their structural and functional status (based on fundamental categories), and their inter-relationships. These features provide an excellent basis for the general conceptual modelling of domains, and for the generation of KOS other than systematic classifications. This is demonstrated by the adoption of a faceted approach to many web search and visualization tools, and by the emergence of a facet based methodology for the construction of thesauri. Current work on the Bliss Bibliographic Classification (Second Edition) is investigating the ways in which the full complexity of faceted structures may be represented through encoded data, capable of generating intellectually and mechanically compatible forms of indexing tools from a single source. It is suggested that a number of research questions relating to the Semantic Web could be tackled through the medium of facet analysis.

0.012331394 = product of:
  0.024662787 = sum of:
    0.024662787 = product of:
      0.049325574 = sum of:
        0.049325574 = weight(_text_:theory in 2798) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049325574 = score(doc=2798,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.2297209 = fieldWeight in 2798, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2798)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Classification is the basis of knowledge organization. Ontology, a comparatively new concept used as a tool for knowledge organization, establishes connections between terms and concepts enhancing the scope and usefulness of library classification. Ranganathan had invented the strong theory of the analytico-synthetic method in classification and devised Colon Classification. In this study a domain ontology on library and information science has been developed by implementing Raganathan's faceted approach of classification. The hierarchical relationships among terms have been established primarily keeping conformity with that of Ranganathan's Colon Classification (7th edition). But to accommodate new vocabularies, DDC 23rd edition and UDC Standard edition are consulted. The Protégé ontology editor has been used. The study carefully examines the steps in which the analytico-synthetic method have been followed. Ranganathan's Canon of Characteristics and its relevant Canons have been followed for defining the class-subclass hierarchy. It concludes by identifying the drawbacks as well as the merits faced while developing the ontology. This paper proves the relevance and importance of Ranganathan's philosophy in developing ontology based knowledge organization.

0.012331394 = product of:
  0.024662787 = sum of:
    0.024662787 = product of:
      0.049325574 = sum of:
        0.049325574 = weight(_text_:theory in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049325574 = score(doc=2874,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.2297209 = fieldWeight in 2874, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2874)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The aim of this article is to estimate the impact of faceted classification and the faceted analytical method on the development of various information retrieval tools over the latter part of the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Design/methodology/approach - The article presents an examination of various subject access tools intended for retrieval of both print and digital materials to determine whether they exhibit features of faceted systems. Some attention is paid to use of the faceted approach as a means of structuring information on commercial web sites. The secondary and research literature is also surveyed for commentary on and evaluation of facet analysis as a basis for the building of vocabulary and conceptual tools. Findings - The study finds that faceted systems are now very common, with a major increase in their use over the last 15 years. Most LIS subject indexing tools (classifications, subject heading lists and thesauri) now demonstrate features of facet analysis to a greater or lesser degree. A faceted approach is frequently taken to the presentation of product information on commercial web sites, and there is an independent strand of theory and documentation related to this application. There is some significant research on semi-automatic indexing and retrieval (query expansion and query formulation) using facet analytical techniques. Originality/value - This article provides an overview of an important conceptual approach to information retrieval, and compares different understandings and applications of this methodology.