Search (16 results, page 1 of 1)

0.053633332 = product of:
  0.26816666 = sum of:
    0.26816666 = weight(_text_:dictionaries in 5559) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.26816666 = score(doc=5559,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.2864761 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9177637 = idf(docFreq=118, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041411664 = queryNorm
        0.93608737 = fieldWeight in 5559, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          6.9177637 = idf(docFreq=118, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5559)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Scrutinizing the ways in which early printed reference works were designed is a way of bringing typography and book history into the domain of library and information science. The core subject of this discipline is the concept of user-oriented organization of knowledge; it has a close connection to information-seeking behavior and retrieval. By studying the typographic arrangement of knowledge in early printed reference works, one can approach the history of the storage, organization, and retrieval of scientific information. The article discusses the typographic "architecture" of the dictionaries published by the Antwerp printer Christophe Plantin and, more specifically, the three dictionaries of the Dutch language compiled by Plantin's learned proofreader Cornelis Kiliaan (ca. 1530-1607). Kiliaan was one of the first authors to introduce etymology and comparative linguistics into his dictionaries. By analyzing the typographic macrostructures and microstructures of his works, it is possible to discover the lines along which they developed-in the words of Paul Valéry-into machines à savoir. The article also compares Plantin's dictionaries with the international benchmark for lexicographic publishing in the Renaissance world, viz. the translation dictionaries compiled and printed by the Parisian publisher Robert Estienne.

0.02627486 = product of:
  0.1313743 = sum of:
    0.1313743 = weight(_text_:dictionaries in 2375) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1313743 = score(doc=2375,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2864761 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9177637 = idf(docFreq=118, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041411664 = queryNorm
        0.4585873 = fieldWeight in 2375, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.9177637 = idf(docFreq=118, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2375)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Moments after mankind started to make moveable physical records describing the world about them people started to store and arrange the records in logical order. Thereafter, records were copied and translated and simple catalogues of collections were compiled. Others, working from these records and from oral sources compiled lists, dictionaries and encyclopaedias. As the means of communication developed from the first revolutionary invention of writing to other revolutions in communication methods, notably printing with moveable type and the computer, techniques of knowledge organization became more sophisticated and powerful. In the first half of the twenty-first century we are faced with an unprecedented communications overload and the full range of knowledge organization techniques need to be deployed, further developed and applied.

0.024694616 = product of:
  0.12347308 = sum of:
    0.12347308 = product of:
      0.24694616 = sum of:
        0.24694616 = weight(_text_:german in 600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.24694616 = score(doc=600,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24051933 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.808009 = idf(docFreq=360, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041411664 = queryNorm
            1.0267206 = fieldWeight in 600, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.808009 = idf(docFreq=360, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=600)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.021895718 = product of:
  0.109478585 = sum of:
    0.109478585 = weight(_text_:dictionaries in 592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.109478585 = score(doc=592,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2864761 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.9177637 = idf(docFreq=118, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041411664 = queryNorm
        0.38215607 = fieldWeight in 592, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.9177637 = idf(docFreq=118, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=592)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to identify the most important factors and features in the evolution of thesauri and ontologies through a dialectic model. This model relies on a dialectic process or idea which could be discovered via a dialectic method. This method has focused on identifying the logical relationship between a beginning proposition, or an idea called a thesis, a negation of that idea called the antithesis, and the result of the conflict between the two ideas, called a synthesis. During the creation of knowl­edge organization systems (KOSs), the identification of logical relations between different ideas has been made possible through the consideration and use of the most influential methods and tools such as dictionaries, Roget's Thesaurus, thesaurus, micro-, macro- and metathesauri, ontology, lower, middle and upper level ontologies. The analysis process has adapted a historical methodology, more specifically a dialectic method and documentary method as the reasoning process. This supports our arguments and synthesizes a method for the analysis of research results. Confirmed by the research results, the principle of unity has shown to be the most important factor in the development and evolution of the structure of knowl­edge organization systems and their types. There are various types of unity when considering the analysis of logical relations. These include the principle of unity of alphabetical order, unity of science, semantic unity, structural unity and conceptual unity. The results have clearly demonstrated a movement from plurality to unity in the assembling of the complex structure of knowl­edge organization systems to increase information and knowl­edge storage and retrieval performance.

0.015434134 = product of:
  0.07717067 = sum of:
    0.07717067 = product of:
      0.15434134 = sum of:
        0.15434134 = weight(_text_:german in 5066) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15434134 = score(doc=5066,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.24051933 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.808009 = idf(docFreq=360, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041411664 = queryNorm
            0.6417004 = fieldWeight in 5066, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.808009 = idf(docFreq=360, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5066)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article examines changing views on "systematic" or classified shelf-arrangement in German library science from Kayser's 1790 work Ueber die Manipulation bey der Einrichtung einer Bibliothek to the 1914 Versammlung deutscher Bibliothekare in Leipzig, at which Georg Leyh delivered the seminal paper, "Systematische oder mechanische Aufstellung?" Systematic arrangement was, with few exceptions, held up as an ideal throughout the nineteenth century; but by 1914 it could be agreed to belong to a past era in which, in the words of Leyh, libraries ran as a "Kleinbetrieb" [small business] (Leyh 1913, 100, "Das Dogma von der systematischen Aufstellung II-IV." Zentralblatt für Bibliothekswesen 30:97-135). In particular, this article seeks to explore how changing views on the ideal of systematic shelf-arrangement in German library science during this period reflected evolving conceptions of librarianship. For nineteenth-century writers such as Ebert, Molbech, and Petzholdt, systematic classification and arrangement had meaning against the backdrop of an encyclopedic tradition within which libraries and librarians played an important role in organizing and presenting a rational overview of the universe of knowledge - an overview that was to be both physical and intellectual. The waning of the ideal of systematic arrangement at the turn of the twentieth century was associated with a sense of loss, as an intellectual or "scholarly" tradition of librarianship was seen to give way to more utilitarian and "bureaucratic" expectations. The changing fortunes of the ideal of systematic arrangement in German library science between 1790 and 1914 may be seen to illustrate how progress and loss are often inextricably linked in the history of libraries and librarianship

0.015279015 = product of:
  0.07639507 = sum of:
    0.07639507 = product of:
      0.15279014 = sum of:
        0.15279014 = weight(_text_:german in 5551) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15279014 = score(doc=5551,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.24051933 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.808009 = idf(docFreq=360, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041411664 = queryNorm
            0.635251 = fieldWeight in 5551, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.808009 = idf(docFreq=360, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5551)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The German librarian Julius Hanauer, primarily known for his support of decimal classification in the 1920s, was an important link between Germany and the international bibliographic movement and documentation network in the first third of the twentieth century. Working in the early twentieth century at the Institut International de Bibliographie in Brussels, Hanauer had regular contact with members of the documentation community, such as Henri La Fontaine and Paul Otlet, and others outside Belgium, such as Wilhelm Ostwald. Tracing the facets of Hanauer's activities and connections as an information pioneer mirrored the contemporary world of internationalism and documentation.

0.010803895 = product of:
  0.054019473 = sum of:
    0.054019473 = product of:
      0.10803895 = sum of:
        0.10803895 = weight(_text_:german in 5552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10803895 = score(doc=5552,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24051933 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.808009 = idf(docFreq=360, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041411664 = queryNorm
            0.4491903 = fieldWeight in 5552, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.808009 = idf(docFreq=360, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5552)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The combinatorial thinking of the chemist and Nobel laureate Wilhelm Ostwald grew out of his activities in chemistry and was further developed in his philosophy of nature. Ostwald used combinatorics as an analogous, creative, and interdisciplinary way of thinking in areas like knowledge organization and in his theory of colors and forms. His work marginally influenced art movements like the German Werkbund, the Dutch De Stijl, and the Bauhaus. Ostwald's activities and his use of spatial analogies such as bridge, net, or pyramid can be viewed as support for a relation between information-or "in-formation," or Bildung (education, formation)-and form.

0.008769694 = product of:
  0.04384847 = sum of:
    0.04384847 = product of:
      0.13154541 = sum of:
        0.13154541 = weight(_text_:3a in 7394) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13154541 = score(doc=7394,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.35108855 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041411664 = queryNorm
            0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 7394, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=7394)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Ergebnis einer Umfrage aus dem Frühjahr 1993. A. Wissenschaftliche Bibliotheken: Versandt wurde der Fragebogen an die Mitglieder der Sektion IV des DBV. Fragen: (1a) Um welchen Bestand handelt es sich, der sachlich erschlossen wird? (1b) Wie groß ist dieser Bestand? (1c) Wird dieser Bestand vollständig oder nur in Auswahl (einzelne Fächer, Lehrbücher, Dissertationen o.ä.) sachlich erschlossen? (1d) Seit wann bestehen die jetzigen Sachkataloge? (2) Auf welche Art wird der Bestand zur Zeit sachlich erschlossen? (3a) Welche Klassifikation wird angewendet? (3b) Gibt es alphabetisches SyK-Register bzw. einen Zugriff auf die Klassenbeschreibungen? (3c) Gibt es ergänzende Schlüssel für die Aspekte Ort, Zeit, Form? (4) Falls Sie einen SWK führen (a) nach welchem Regelwerk? (b) Gibt es ein genormtes Vokabular oder einen Thesaurus (ggf. nur für bestimmte Fächer)? (5) In welcher Form existieren die Sachkataloge? (6) Ist die Bibliothek an einer kooperativen Sacherschließung, z.B. in einem Verbund beteiligt? [Nein: 79%] (7) Nutzen Sie Fremdleistungen bei der Sacherschließung? [Ja: 46%] (8) Welche sachlichen Suchmöglichkeiten gibt es für Benutzer? (9) Sind zukünftige Veränderungen bei der Sacherschließung geplant? [Ja: 73%]. - B. Öffentliche Bibliotheken: Die Umfrage richtete sich an alle ÖBs der Sektionen I, II und III des DBV. Fragen: (1) Welche Sachkataloge führen Sie? (2) Welche Klassifikationen (Systematiken) liegen dem SyK zugrunde? [ASB: 242; KAB: 333; SfB: 4 (???); SSD: 11; Berliner: 18] (3) Führen Sie ein eigenes Schlagwort-Register zum SyK bzw. zur Klassifikation (Systematik)? (4) Führen Sie den SWK nach ...? [RSWK: 132 (= ca. 60%) anderen Regeln: 93] (5) Seit wann bestehen die jetzigen Sachkataloge? (6) In welcher Form existiern die Sachkataloge? (7) In welchem Umfang wird der Bestand erschlossen? (8) Welche Signaturen verwenden Sie? (9) Ist die Bibliothek an einer kooperativen Sacherschließung, z.B. einem Verbund, beteiligt? [Nein: 96%] (10) Nutzen Sie Fremdleistungen bei der Sacherschließung? [Ja: 70%] (11) Woher beziehen Sie diese Fremdleistungen? (12) Verfügen Sie über ein Online-Katalogsystem mit OPAC? [Ja: 78; Nein: 614] (13) Sind zukünftig Veränderungen bei der Sacherschließung geplant? [Nein: 458; Ja: 237]; RESÜMEE für ÖB: "(i) Einführung von EDV-Katalogen bleibt auch in den 90er Jahren ein Thema, (ii) Der Aufbau von SWK wird in vielen Bibliotheken in Angriff genommen, dabei spielt die Fremddatenübernahme eine entscheidende Rolle, (iii) RSWK werden zunehmend angewandt, Nutzung der SWD auch für andere Regeln wirkt normierend, (iv) Große Bewegung auf dem 'Systematik-Markt' ist in absehbarer Zeit nicht zu erwarten, (v) Für kleinere Bibliotheken wird der Zettelkatalog auf absehbare Zeit noch die herrschende Katalogform sein, (vi) Der erhebliche Nachholbedarf in den neuen Bundesländern wird nur in einem größeren Zeitraum zu leisten sein. ??? SPEZIALBIBIOTHEKEN ???

0.006732851 = product of:
  0.033664253 = sum of:
    0.033664253 = product of:
      0.067328505 = sum of:
        0.067328505 = weight(_text_:22 in 6041) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.067328505 = score(doc=6041,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1450166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041411664 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6041, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6041)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Series

Kölner Arbeiten zum Bibliotheks- und Dokumentationswesen; H.22

0.006173654 = product of:
  0.03086827 = sum of:
    0.03086827 = product of:
      0.06173654 = sum of:
        0.06173654 = weight(_text_:german in 3345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06173654 = score(doc=3345,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24051933 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.808009 = idf(docFreq=360, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041411664 = queryNorm
            0.25668016 = fieldWeight in 3345, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.808009 = idf(docFreq=360, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3345)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

At a time when Internet use is closely tracked and social networking sites supply data for targeted advertising, Lars Heide presents the first academic study of the invention that fueled today's information revolution: the punched card. Early punched cards were first developed to process the United States census in 1890. They were soon used to calculate invoices and to issue pay slips. As demand for more sophisticated systems and reading machines increased in both the United States and Europe, punched cards were no longer a simple data-processing tool. Insurance companies, public utilities, businesses, and governments all used them to keep detailed records of their customers, competitors, employees, citizens, and enemies. The United States used punched-card registers in the late 1930s to pay roughly 21 million Americans their Social Security pensions; Vichy France used similar technologies in an attempt to mobilize an army against the occupying German forces; Germans in 1941 developed several punched-card registers to make the war effort more effective. Heide's analysis of these three major punched-card systems, as well as the impact of the invention on Great Britain, illustrates how industrial nations established administrative systems that enabled them to locate and control their citizens, for better or for worse. Heide's comparative study of the development of punched-card systems in the United States, Great Britain, France, and Germany explores how different cultures collected personal and financial data and how they adapted to new technologies. He examines this history for both its business and technological implications in today's information-dependent society. "Punched-Card Systems in the Early Information Explosion, 1880-1945" will interest students and scholars from a wide range of disciplines, including the history of technology, computer science, business history, and management and organizational studies.

0.0044885674 = product of:
  0.022442836 = sum of:
    0.022442836 = product of:
      0.044885673 = sum of:
        0.044885673 = weight(_text_:22 in 6607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044885673 = score(doc=6607,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1450166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041411664 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 6607, 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=6607)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Probleme des Wiederaufbaus im wissenschaftlichen Bibliothekswesen: aus d. Verhandlungen des 1. Bibliothekartagung der britischen Zone in Hamburg vom 22.-24.10.1946

0.0044885674 = product of:
  0.022442836 = sum of:
    0.022442836 = product of:
      0.044885673 = sum of:
        0.044885673 = weight(_text_:22 in 2521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044885673 = score(doc=2521,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1450166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041411664 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2521, 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=2521)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 3.2008 13:33:51

0.0044885674 = product of:
  0.022442836 = sum of:
    0.022442836 = product of:
      0.044885673 = sum of:
        0.044885673 = weight(_text_:22 in 1432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044885673 = score(doc=1432,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1450166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041411664 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1432, 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=1432)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 8.2016 15:58:46

0.0039274963 = product of:
  0.01963748 = sum of:
    0.01963748 = product of:
      0.03927496 = sum of:
        0.03927496 = weight(_text_:22 in 3363) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03927496 = score(doc=3363,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1450166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041411664 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3363, 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=3363)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 2.2013 12:10:07

0.0028053545 = product of:
  0.014026772 = sum of:
    0.014026772 = product of:
      0.028053544 = sum of:
        0.028053544 = weight(_text_:22 in 3074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028053544 = score(doc=3074,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1450166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041411664 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3074, 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=3074)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 8.2016 16:06:54

0.0022442837 = product of:
  0.011221418 = sum of:
    0.011221418 = product of:
      0.022442836 = sum of:
        0.022442836 = weight(_text_:22 in 3624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022442836 = score(doc=3624,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1450166 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041411664 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3624, 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=3624)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Footnote

Original in: Pettee, J.: The history and theory of the alphabetical subject approach to books. New York: Wilson 1946. S.22-25.