Search (132 results, page 1 of 7)

  • × theme_ss:"Klassifikationstheorie: Elemente / Struktur"
  1. 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) 0.05
    0.048527997 = product of:
      0.07279199 = sum of:
        0.018676993 = weight(_text_:information in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018676993 = score(doc=2346,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0518325 = 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)
        0.054114997 = sum of:
          0.026024643 = weight(_text_:management in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.026024643 = score(doc=2346,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17470726 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0518325 = queryNorm
              0.14896142 = fieldWeight in 2346, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
                0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2346)
          0.028090354 = weight(_text_:22 in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.028090354 = score(doc=2346,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.18150859 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0518325 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    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
  2. Qin, J.: Evolving paradigms of knowledge representation and organization : a comparative study of classification, XML/DTD and ontology (2003) 0.04
    0.04273218 = product of:
      0.06409827 = sum of:
        0.009983272 = weight(_text_:information in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009983272 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0518325 = 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)
        0.054114997 = sum of:
          0.026024643 = weight(_text_:management in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.026024643 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17470726 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0518325 = queryNorm
              0.14896142 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
                0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
          0.028090354 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.028090354 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.18150859 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0518325 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    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
  3. Hjoerland, B.: Theories of knowledge organization - theories of knowledge (2017) 0.03
    0.03065083 = product of:
      0.045976244 = sum of:
        0.021397185 = weight(_text_:information in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021397185 = score(doc=3494,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0518325 = 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)
        0.02457906 = product of:
          0.04915812 = sum of:
            0.04915812 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04915812 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18150859 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0518325 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    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
  4. Slavic, A.; Cordeiro, M.I.: Core requirements for automation of analytico-synthetic classifications (2004) 0.03
    0.028385475 = product of:
      0.042578213 = sum of:
        0.014974909 = weight(_text_:information in 2651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014974909 = score(doc=2651,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0518325 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2651, 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=2651)
        0.027603304 = product of:
          0.055206608 = sum of:
            0.055206608 = weight(_text_:management in 2651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.055206608 = score(doc=2651,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.17470726 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0518325 = queryNorm
                0.31599492 = fieldWeight in 2651, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2651)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Abstract
    The paper analyses the importance of data presentation and modelling and its role in improving the management, use and exchange of analytico-synthetic classifications in automated systems. Inefficiencies, in this respect, hinder the automation of classification systems that offer the possibility of building compound index/search terms. The lack of machine readable data expressing the semantics and structure of a classification vocabulary has negative effects on information management and retrieval, thus restricting the potential of both automated systems and classifications themselves. The authors analysed the data representation structure of three general analytico-synthetic classification systems (BC2-Bliss Bibliographic Classification; BSO-Broad System of Ordering; UDC-Universal Decimal Classification) and put forward some core requirements for classification data representation
    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
  5. Connaway, L.S.; Sievert, M.C.: Comparison of three classification systems for information on health insurance (1996) 0.03
    0.028139224 = product of:
      0.042208835 = sum of:
        0.01411848 = weight(_text_:information in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01411848 = score(doc=7242,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0518325 = 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)
        0.028090354 = product of:
          0.056180708 = sum of:
            0.056180708 = weight(_text_:22 in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.056180708 = score(doc=7242,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18150859 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0518325 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Date
    22. 4.1997 21:10:19
  6. Ullah, A.; Khusro, S.; Ullah, I.: Bibliographic classification in the digital age : current trends & future directions (2017) 0.03
    0.026828196 = product of:
      0.040242292 = sum of:
        0.017470727 = weight(_text_:information in 5717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017470727 = score(doc=5717,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0518325 = queryNorm
            0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 5717, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5717)
        0.022771563 = product of:
          0.045543127 = sum of:
            0.045543127 = weight(_text_:management in 5717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.045543127 = score(doc=5717,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17470726 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0518325 = queryNorm
                0.2606825 = fieldWeight in 5717, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5717)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Abstract
    Bibliographic classification is among the core activities of Library & Information Science that brings order and proper management to the holdings of a library. Compared to printed media, digital collections present numerous challenges regarding their preservation, curation, organization and resource discovery & access. Therefore, true native perspective is needed to be adopted for bibliographic classification in digital environments. In this research article, we have investigated and reported different approaches to bibliographic classification of digital collections. The article also contributes two evaluation frameworks that evaluate the existing classification schemes and systems. The article presents a bird's-eye view for researchers in reaching a generalized and holistic approach towards bibliographic classification research, where new research avenues have been identified.
    Source
    Information Technology and Libraries. 36(2017) no.3, S.48-77
  7. Jacob, E.K.: Proposal for a classification of classifications built on Beghtol's distinction between "Naïve Classification" and "Professional Classification" (2010) 0.03
    0.026272139 = product of:
      0.039408207 = sum of:
        0.018340444 = weight(_text_:information in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018340444 = score(doc=2945,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0518325 = 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)
        0.021067765 = product of:
          0.04213553 = sum of:
            0.04213553 = weight(_text_:22 in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04213553 = score(doc=2945,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18150859 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0518325 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    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)
  8. Beghtol, C.: Naïve classification systems and the global information society (2004) 0.02
    0.023469714 = product of:
      0.03520457 = sum of:
        0.017648099 = weight(_text_:information in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017648099 = score(doc=3483,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0518325 = 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)
        0.017556472 = product of:
          0.035112944 = sum of:
            0.035112944 = weight(_text_:22 in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.035112944 = score(doc=3483,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18150859 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0518325 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    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
  9. Zhang, J.; Zeng, M.L.: ¬A new similarity measure for subject hierarchical structures (2014) 0.02
    0.023469714 = product of:
      0.03520457 = sum of:
        0.017648099 = weight(_text_:information in 1778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017648099 = score(doc=1778,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0518325 = 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)
        0.017556472 = product of:
          0.035112944 = sum of:
            0.035112944 = weight(_text_:22 in 1778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.035112944 = score(doc=1778,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18150859 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0518325 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    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
  10. Satija, M.P.: Relationships in Ranganathan's Colon Classification (2001) 0.02
    0.023416823 = product of:
      0.035125233 = sum of:
        0.01235367 = weight(_text_:information in 1155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01235367 = score(doc=1155,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0518325 = queryNorm
            0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1155, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1155)
        0.022771563 = product of:
          0.045543127 = sum of:
            0.045543127 = weight(_text_:management in 1155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.045543127 = score(doc=1155,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17470726 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0518325 = queryNorm
                0.2606825 = fieldWeight in 1155, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1155)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Series
    Information science and knowledge management; vol.2
  11. Beghtol, C.: Relationships in classificatory structure and meaning (2001) 0.02
    0.022995595 = product of:
      0.03449339 = sum of:
        0.014974909 = weight(_text_:information in 1138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014974909 = score(doc=1138,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0518325 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 1138, 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=1138)
        0.019518482 = product of:
          0.039036963 = sum of:
            0.039036963 = weight(_text_:management in 1138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.039036963 = score(doc=1138,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17470726 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0518325 = queryNorm
                0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 1138, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1138)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    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.
    Series
    Information science and knowledge management; vol.2
  12. Slavic, A.: On the nature and typology of documentary classifications and their use in a networked environment (2007) 0.02
    0.021104416 = product of:
      0.031656623 = sum of:
        0.01058886 = weight(_text_:information in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01058886 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0518325 = 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)
        0.021067765 = product of:
          0.04213553 = sum of:
            0.04213553 = weight(_text_:22 in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04213553 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18150859 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0518325 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    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
  13. Gnoli, C.: Classifying phenomena : part 4: themes and rhemes (2018) 0.02
    0.021104416 = product of:
      0.031656623 = sum of:
        0.01058886 = weight(_text_:information in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01058886 = score(doc=4152,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0518325 = 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)
        0.021067765 = product of:
          0.04213553 = sum of:
            0.04213553 = weight(_text_:22 in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04213553 = score(doc=4152,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18150859 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0518325 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    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
  14. Advances in classification research. Vol.10 : Proceedings of the 10th ASIS SIG/CR Classification Research Workshop, held at the 62nd ASIS Annual Meeting Nov 1-5, 1999, Washington (2001) 0.02
    0.020071562 = product of:
      0.030107342 = sum of:
        0.01058886 = weight(_text_:information in 1586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01058886 = score(doc=1586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0518325 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1586, 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=1586)
        0.019518482 = product of:
          0.039036963 = sum of:
            0.039036963 = weight(_text_:management in 1586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.039036963 = score(doc=1586,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17470726 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0518325 = queryNorm
                0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 1586, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1586)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Content
    Enthält die Beiträge: DAVENPORT, E.: Implicit orders: documentary genres and organizational practice; ANDERSEN, J. u. F.S. CHRISTENSEN: Wittgenstein and indexing theory; OLSON, H.A.: Cultural discourses of classification: indigeous alternatives to the tradition of Aristotle, Dürkheim, and Foucault; FRÂNCU, V.: A universal classification system going through changes; JACOB, E.K. u. U. PRISS: Nontraditional indexing structures for the management of electronic resources; BROOKS, T.A.: Relevance auras: macro patterns and micro scatter; RUIZ, M.E. u. SRINIVASAN, P.: Combining machine learning and hierarchical indexing structures for text categorization; WEEDMAN, J.: Local practice and the growth of knowledge: decisions in subject access to digitized images
    Imprint
    Medford, NJ : Information Today
  15. 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) 0.02
    0.020071562 = product of:
      0.030107342 = sum of:
        0.01058886 = weight(_text_:information in 2631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01058886 = score(doc=2631,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0518325 = 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)
        0.019518482 = product of:
          0.039036963 = sum of:
            0.039036963 = weight(_text_:management in 2631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.039036963 = score(doc=2631,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17470726 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0518325 = queryNorm
                0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 2631, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2631)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    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.
  16. Molholt, P.: Qualities of classification schemes for the Information Superhighway (1995) 0.02
    0.02002371 = product of:
      0.030035563 = sum of:
        0.01247909 = weight(_text_:information in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01247909 = score(doc=5562,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0518325 = 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)
        0.017556472 = product of:
          0.035112944 = sum of:
            0.035112944 = weight(_text_:22 in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.035112944 = score(doc=5562,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18150859 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0518325 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    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
  17. Hjoerland, B.: Facet analysis : the logical approach to knowledge organization (2013) 0.02
    0.019162996 = product of:
      0.028744493 = sum of:
        0.01247909 = weight(_text_:information in 2720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01247909 = score(doc=2720,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0518325 = queryNorm
            0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 2720, 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=2720)
        0.016265402 = product of:
          0.032530803 = sum of:
            0.032530803 = weight(_text_:management in 2720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.032530803 = score(doc=2720,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17470726 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0518325 = queryNorm
                0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 2720, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2720)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Abstract
    The facet-analytic paradigm is probably the most distinct approach to knowledge organization within Library and Information Science, and in many ways it has dominated what has be termed "modern classification theory". It was mainly developed by S.R. Ranganathan and the British Classification Research Group, but it is mostly based on principles of logical division developed more than two millennia ago. Colon Classification (CC) and Bliss 2 (BC2) are among the most important systems developed on this theoretical basis, but it has also influenced the development of other systems, such as the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) and is also applied in many websites. It still has a strong position in the field and it is the most explicit and "pure" theoretical approach to knowledge organization (KO) (but it is not by implication necessarily also the most important one). The strength of this approach is its logical principles and the way it provides structures in knowledge organization systems (KOS). The main weaknesses are (1) its lack of empirical basis and (2) its speculative ordering of knowledge without basis in the development or influence of theories and socio-historical studies. It seems to be based on the problematic assumption that relations between concepts are a priori and not established by the development of models, theories and laws.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 49(2013) no.2, S.545-557
  18. Dousa, T.M.: Categories and the architectonics of system in Julius Otto Kaiser's method of systematic indexing (2014) 0.02
    0.017587014 = product of:
      0.02638052 = sum of:
        0.0088240495 = weight(_text_:information in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0088240495 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0518325 = 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)
        0.017556472 = product of:
          0.035112944 = sum of:
            0.035112944 = weight(_text_:22 in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.035112944 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18150859 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0518325 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    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
  19. Jacob, E.K.: ¬The everyday world of work : two approaches to the investigation of classification in context (2001) 0.02
    0.0167263 = product of:
      0.02508945 = sum of:
        0.0088240495 = weight(_text_:information in 4494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0088240495 = score(doc=4494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0518325 = queryNorm
            0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4494, 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=4494)
        0.016265402 = product of:
          0.032530803 = sum of:
            0.032530803 = weight(_text_:management in 4494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.032530803 = score(doc=4494,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17470726 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0518325 = queryNorm
                0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 4494, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4494)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Abstract
    One major aspect of T.D. Wilson's research has been his insistence on situating the investigation of information behaviour within the context of its occurrence - within the everyday world of work. The significance of this approach is reviewed in light of the notion of embodied cognition that characterises the evolving theoretical episteme in cognitive science research. Embodied cognition employs complex external props such as stigmergic structures and cognitive scaffoldings to reduce the cognitive burden on the individual and to augment human problem-solving activities. The cognitive function of the classification scheme is described as exemplifying both stigmergic structures and cognitive scaffoldings. Two different but complementary approaches to the investigation of situated cognition are presented: cognition-as-scaffolding and cognition-as-infrastructure. Classification-as-scaffolding views the classification scheme as a knowledge storage device supporting and promoting cognitive economy. Classification-as-infrastructure views the classification system as a social convention that, when integrated with technological structures and organisational practices, supports knowledge management work. Both approaches are shown to build upon and extend Wilson's contention that research is most productive when it attends to the social and organisational contexts of cognitive activity by focusing on the everyday world of work.
  20. Classification research for knowledge representation and organization : Proc. of the 5th Int. Study Conf. on Classification Research, Toronto, Canada, 24.-28.6.1991 (1992) 0.02
    0.016489435 = product of:
      0.02473415 = sum of:
        0.014974909 = weight(_text_:information in 2072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014974909 = score(doc=2072,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.09099081 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0518325 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2072, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2072)
        0.009759241 = product of:
          0.019518482 = sum of:
            0.019518482 = weight(_text_:management in 2072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.019518482 = score(doc=2072,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17470726 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0518325 = queryNorm
                0.11172107 = fieldWeight in 2072, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2072)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Abstract
    This volume deals with both theoretical and empirical research in classification and encompasses universal classification systems, special classification systems, thesauri and the place of classification in a broad spectrum of document and information systems. Papers fall into one or three major areas as follows: 1) general principles and policies 2) structure and logic in classification; and empirical investigation; classification in the design of various types of document/information systems. The papers originate from the ISCCR '91 conference and have been selected according to the following criteria: relevance to the conference theme; importance of the topic in the representation and organization of knowledge; quality; and originality in terms of potential contribution to research and new knowledge.
    Content
    Enthält die Beiträge: SVENONIUS, E.: Classification: prospects, problems, and possibilities; BEALL, J.: Editing the Dewey Decimal Classification online: the evolution of the DDC database; BEGHTOL, C.: Toward a theory of fiction analysis for information storage and retrieval; CRAVEN, T.C.: Concept relation structures and their graphic display; FUGMANN, R.: Illusory goals in information science research; GILCHRIST, A.: UDC: the 1990's and beyond; GREEN, R.: The expression of syntagmatic relationships in indexing: are frame-based index languages the answer?; HUMPHREY, S.M.: Use and management of classification systems for knowledge-based indexing; MIKSA, F.L.: The concept of the universe of knowledge and the purpose of LIS classification; SCOTT, M. u. A.F. FONSECA: Methodology for functional appraisal of records and creation of a functional thesaurus; ALBRECHTSEN, H.: PRESS: a thesaurus-based information system for software reuse; AMAESHI, B.: A preliminary AAT compatible African art thesaurus; CHATTERJEE, A.: Structures of Indian classification systems of the pre-Ranganathan era and their impact on the Colon Classification; COCHRANE, P.A.: Indexing and searching thesauri, the Janus or Proteus of information retrieval; CRAVEN, T.C.: A general versus a special algorithm in the graphic display of thesauri; DAHLBERG, I.: The basis of a new universal classification system seen from a philosophy of science point of view: DRABENSTOTT, K.M., RIESTER, L.C. u. B.A.DEDE: Shelflisting using expert systems; FIDEL, R.: Thesaurus requirements for an intermediary expert system; GREEN, R.: Insights into classification from the cognitive sciences: ramifications for index languages; GROLIER, E. de: Towards a syndetic information retrieval system; GUENTHER, R.: The USMARC format for classification data: development and implementation; HOWARTH, L.C.: Factors influencing policies for the adoption and integration of revisions to classification schedules; HUDON, M.: Term definitions in subject thesauri: the Canadian literacy thesaurus experience; HUSAIN, S.: Notational techniques for the accomodation of subjects in Colon Classification 7th edition: theoretical possibility vis-à-vis practical need; KWASNIK, B.H. u. C. JORGERSEN: The exploration by means of repertory grids of semantic differences among names of official documents; MICCO, M.: Suggestions for automating the Library of Congress Classification schedules; PERREAULT, J.M.: An essay on the prehistory of general categories (II): G.W. Leibniz, Conrad Gesner; REES-POTTER, L.K.: How well do thesauri serve the social sciences?; REVIE, C.W. u. G. SMART: The construction and the use of faceted classification schema in technical domains; ROCKMORE, M.: Structuring a flexible faceted thsaurus record for corporate information retrieval; ROULIN, C.: Sub-thesauri as part of a metathesaurus; SMITH, L.C.: UNISIST revisited: compatibility in the context of collaboratories; STILES, W.G.: Notes concerning the use chain indexing as a possible means of simulating the inductive leap within artificial intelligence; SVENONIUS, E., LIU, S. u. B. SUBRAHMANYAM: Automation in chain indexing; TURNER, J.: Structure in data in the Stockshot database at the National Film Board of Canada; VIZINE-GOETZ, D.: The Dewey Decimal Classification as an online classification tool; WILLIAMSON, N.J.: Restructuring UDC: problems and possibilies; WILSON, A.: The hierarchy of belief: ideological tendentiousness in universal classification; WILSON, B.F.: An evaluation of the systematic botany schedule of the Universal Decimal Classification (English full edition, 1979); ZENG, L.: Research and development of classification and thesauri in China; CONFERENCE SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Authors

Languages

Types

  • a 121
  • m 8
  • el 6
  • s 3
  • More… Less…