Search (53 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × theme_ss:"Klassifikationstheorie: Elemente / Struktur"
  1. Grove, A.: Taxonomy (2009) 0.05 
    0.052681718 = product of:
  0.105363436 = sum of:
    0.08324346 = weight(_text_:description in 3846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08324346 = score(doc=3846,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.35958138 = fieldWeight in 3846, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3846)
    0.022119977 = product of:
      0.044239953 = sum of:
        0.044239953 = weight(_text_:access in 3846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044239953 = score(doc=3846,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 3846, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3846)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Taxonomy reflects the human instinct to organize. Once limited in Western culture to certain natural sciences, in the early twenty-first century, it has expanded to many domains, practices, and uses. Domains now include almost anything of interest, but particularly those motivated by business needs. Practices and uses include description, analysis, prediction, mapping terminology, information access, representation of knowledge, and tool-building. For information science, taxonomy is a powerful tool for connecting information content with information consumers effectively and efficiently.
  2. Green, R.: Relational aspects of subject authority control : the contributions of classificatory structure (2015) 0.04 
    0.03816245 = product of:
  0.0763249 = sum of:
    0.05945961 = weight(_text_:description in 2282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05945961 = score(doc=2282,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.25684384 = fieldWeight in 2282, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2282)
    0.01686529 = product of:
      0.03373058 = sum of:
        0.03373058 = weight(_text_:22 in 2282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03373058 = score(doc=2282,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2282, 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=2282)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The structure of a classification system contributes in a variety of ways to representing semantic relationships between its topics in the context of subject authority control. We explore this claim using the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system as a case study. The DDC links its classes into a notational hierarchy, supplemented by a network of relationships between topics, expressed in class descriptions and in the Relative Index (RI). Topics/subjects are expressed both by the natural language text of the caption and notes (including Manual notes) in a class description and by the controlled vocabulary of the RI's alphabetic index, which shows where topics are treated in the classificatory structure. The expression of relationships between topics depends on paradigmatic and syntagmatic relationships between natural language terms in captions, notes, and RI terms; on the meaning of specific note types; and on references recorded between RI terms. The specific means used in the DDC for capturing hierarchical (including disciplinary), equivalence and associative relationships are surveyed.
    Date
    8.11.2015 21:27:22
  3. Frické, M.: Logic and the organization of information (2012) 0.03 
    0.032817632 = product of:
  0.065635264 = sum of:
    0.04162173 = weight(_text_:description in 1782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04162173 = score(doc=1782,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.17979069 = fieldWeight in 1782, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1782)
    0.024013536 = weight(_text_:26 in 1782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024013536 = score(doc=1782,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.13656367 = fieldWeight in 1782, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1782)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    16. 3.2012 11:26:29
    Footnote
    Rez. in: J. Doc. 70(2014) no.4: "Books on the organization of information and knowledge, aimed at a library/information audience, tend to fall into two clear categories. Most are practical and pragmatic, explaining the "how" as much or more than the "why". Some are theoretical, in part or in whole, showing how the practice of classification, indexing, resource description and the like relates to philosophy, logic, and other foundational bases; the books by Langridge (1992) and by Svenonious (2000) are well-known examples this latter kind. To this category certainly belongs a recent book by Martin Frické (2012). The author takes the reader for an extended tour through a variety of aspects of information organization, including classification and taxonomy, alphabetical vocabularies and indexing, cataloguing and FRBR, and aspects of the semantic web. The emphasis throughout is on showing how practice is, or should be, underpinned by formal structures; there is a particular emphasis on first order predicate calculus. The advantages of a greater, and more explicit, use of symbolic logic is a recurring theme of the book. There is a particularly commendable historical dimension, often omitted in texts on this subject. It cannot be said that this book is entirely an easy read, although it is well written with a helpful index, and its arguments are generally well supported by clear and relevant examples. It is thorough and detailed, but thereby seems better geared to the needs of advanced students and researchers than to the practitioners who are suggested as a main market. For graduate students in library/information science and related disciplines, in particular, this will be a valuable resource. I would place it alongside Svenonious' book as the best insight into the theoretical "why" of information organization. It has evoked a good deal of interest, including a set of essay commentaries in Journal of Information Science (Gilchrist et al., 2013). Introducing these, Alan Gilchrist rightly says that Frické deserves a salute for making explicit the fundamental relationship between the ancient discipline of logic and modern information organization. If information science is to continue to develop, and make a contribution to the organization of the information environments of the future, then this book sets the groundwork for the kind of studies which will be needed." (D. Bawden)
  4. Jacob, E.K.: Proposal for a classification of classifications built on Beghtol's distinction between "Naïve Classification" and "Professional Classification" (2010) 0.03 
    0.030702204 = product of:
  0.061404407 = sum of:
    0.04116606 = weight(_text_:26 in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04116606 = score(doc=2945,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.23410915 = fieldWeight in 2945, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2945)
    0.020238347 = product of:
      0.040476695 = sum of:
        0.040476695 = weight(_text_:22 in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040476695 = score(doc=2945,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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)
    Date
    1. 6.2010 17:46:26
  5. McIlwaine, I.C.; Williamson, N.J.: ¬A question of place (2004) 0.03 
    0.029108802 = product of:
  0.11643521 = sum of:
    0.11643521 = weight(_text_:26 in 3751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11643521 = score(doc=3751,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.6621607 = fieldWeight in 3751, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3751)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    26. 5.1997 20:18:11
    Source
    Extensions and corrections to the UDC. 26(2004), S.33-39
  6. Kublik, A.; Clevette, V.; Ward, D.; Olson, H.A.: Adapting dominant classifications to particular contexts (2003) 0.03 
    0.025226578 = product of:
  0.10090631 = sum of:
    0.10090631 = weight(_text_:description in 5516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10090631 = score(doc=5516,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.43587846 = fieldWeight in 5516, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5516)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    This paper addresses the process of adapting to a particular culture or context a classification that has grown out of western culture to become a global standard. The authors use a project that adapts DDC for use in a feminist/women's issues context to demonstrate an approach that works. The project is particularly useful as an interdisciplinary example. Discussion consists of four parts: (1) definition of the problem indicating the need for adaptation and efforts to date; (2) description of the methodology developed for creating an expansion; (3) description of the interface developed for actually doing the work, with its potential for a distributed group to work on it together (could even be internationally distributed); and (4) generalization of how the methodology could be used for particular contexts by country, ethnicity, perspective or other defining factors.
  7. Gnoli, C.: Progress in synthetic classification : towards unique definition of concepts (2007) 0.03 
    0.025052518 = product of:
  0.050105035 = sum of:
    0.03430505 = weight(_text_:26 in 2527) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03430505 = score(doc=2527,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.19509095 = fieldWeight in 2527, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2527)
    0.015799982 = product of:
      0.031599965 = sum of:
        0.031599965 = weight(_text_:access in 2527) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031599965 = score(doc=2527,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04979191 = queryNorm
            0.18724121 = fieldWeight in 2527, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2527)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Content
    Beitrag anlässlich: Proceedings of the International Seminar "Information access for the global community", 4-5 June 2007, The Hague. - Vgl.: http://www.udcc.org/seminar07/presentations/gnoli.pdf.
    Date
    26. 5.1997 20:18:11
  8. Kyle, B.: ¬An examination of some of the problems in drafting general classifications and some proposals for their solution (1959) 0.02 
    0.024013536 = product of:
  0.096054144 = sum of:
    0.096054144 = weight(_text_:26 in 1965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.096054144 = score(doc=1965,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.5462547 = fieldWeight in 1965, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1965)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Revue de la documentation. 26(1959), S.17-21
  9. Vickery, B.C.: Structure and function in retrieval languages (1971) 0.02 
    0.024013536 = product of:
  0.096054144 = sum of:
    0.096054144 = weight(_text_:26 in 4971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.096054144 = score(doc=4971,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.5462547 = fieldWeight in 4971, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4971)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    18. 9.2018 18:36:26
  10. Foskett, D.J.: Facet analysis (2009) 0.02 
    0.023783846 = product of:
  0.09513538 = sum of:
    0.09513538 = weight(_text_:description in 3754) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09513538 = score(doc=3754,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.41095015 = fieldWeight in 3754, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3754)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The brothers Foskett, Anthony and Douglas, have both made major contributions to the theory and practice of subject analysis and description. Here, Douglas Foskett explains facet analysis, a vital technique in the development of both classification schemes and thesauri. Foskett himself created faceted classification schemes for specific disciplines, drawing from the philosophy of the great Indian classificationist, S.R. Ranganathan.
  11. Zeng, M.L.; Panzer, M.; Salaba, A.: Expressing classification schemes with OWL 2 Web Ontology Language : exploring issues and opportunities based on experiments using OWL 2 for three classification schemes 0.02 
    0.019405868 = product of:
  0.07762347 = sum of:
    0.07762347 = weight(_text_:26 in 3130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07762347 = score(doc=3130,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.44144046 = fieldWeight in 3130, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3130)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    4. 6.2010 19:26:54
    Source
    Paradigms and conceptual systems in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Eleventh International ISKO conference, Rome, 23-26 February 2010, ed. Claudio Gnoli, Indeks, Frankfurt M
  12. Frické, M.: Reflections on classification : Thomas Reid and bibliographic description (2013) 0.02 
    0.017837884 = product of:
  0.071351536 = sum of:
    0.071351536 = weight(_text_:description in 1766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.071351536 = score(doc=1766,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.3082126 = fieldWeight in 1766, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1766)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
  13. Frické, M.: Faceted classification, analysis and search : some questions on their interrelations (2017) 0.02 
    0.017837884 = product of:
  0.071351536 = sum of:
    0.071351536 = weight(_text_:description in 4121) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.071351536 = score(doc=4121,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.3082126 = fieldWeight in 4121, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4121)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    A description is provided of basic faceted classification, which involves combinations of foci across facets, where the foci within a facet are dependent (i.e., exclusive) and the foci across facets are independent (i.e., orthogonal). This is shown to be suitable for organizing the basic goods that Amazon, the online retailer, sells and for progressive filtering as a mode of search. However, on closer inspection, the Amazon case involves a sorted domain. This is problematic for basic faceted classification. Additionally, books from Amazon would typically carry subject classification, which also is difficult for basic faceted classification. It does not support filtering as a mode of search. Subject classification really requires relatively sophisticated linguistic and logical constructors and modifiers, such as adjectives, adverbs, functions, binary relations, and transitive verbs. These can be part of a synthetic subject classification scheme, but they pose a challenge for faceting.
  14. Koshman, S.: Categorization and classification revisited : a review of concept in library science and cognitive psychology (1993) 0.02 
    0.017152525 = product of:
  0.0686101 = sum of:
    0.0686101 = weight(_text_:26 in 8349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0686101 = score(doc=8349,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.3901819 = fieldWeight in 8349, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=8349)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Current studies in librarianship. 17(1993) nos.1/2, S.26-41
  15. Molholt, P.: Qualities of classification schemes for the Information Superhighway (1995) 0.02 
    0.016332638 = product of:
  0.06533055 = sum of:
    0.06533055 = sum of:
      0.031599965 = weight(_text_:access in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031599965 = score(doc=5562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04979191 = queryNorm
          0.18724121 = fieldWeight in 5562, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5562)
      0.03373058 = weight(_text_:22 in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03373058 = score(doc=5562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04979191 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    For my segment of this program I'd like to focus on some basic qualities of classification schemes. These qualities are critical to our ability to truly organize knowledge for access. As I see it, there are at least five qualities of note. The first one of these properties that I want to talk about is "authoritative." By this I mean standardized, but I mean more than standardized with a built in consensus-building process. A classification scheme constructed by a collaborative, consensus-building process carries the approval, and the authority, of the discipline groups that contribute to it and that it affects... The next property of classification systems is "expandable," living, responsive, with a clear locus of responsibility for its continuous upkeep. The worst thing you can do with a thesaurus, or a classification scheme, is to finish it. You can't ever finish it because it reflects ongoing intellectual activity... The third property is "intuitive." That is, the system has to be approachable, it has to be transparent, or at least capable of being transparent. It has to have an underlying logic that supports the classification scheme but doesn't dominate it... The fourth property is "organized and logical." I advocate very strongly, and agree with Lois Chan, that classification must be based on a rule-based structure, on somebody's world-view of the syndetic structure... The fifth property is "universal" by which I mean the classification scheme needs be useable by any specific system or application, and be available as a language for multiple purposes.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 21(1995) no.2, S.19-22
  16. Bergman, M.K..: Hierarchy in knowledge systems (2022) 0.01 
    0.014864903 = product of:
  0.05945961 = sum of:
    0.05945961 = weight(_text_:description in 1099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05945961 = score(doc=1099,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23150103 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.25684384 = fieldWeight in 1099, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1099)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Hierarchies abound to help us organize our world. A hierarchy places items into a general order, where more 'general' is also more 'abstract'. The etymology of hierarchy is grounded in notions of religious and social rank. This article, after a historical review, focuses on knowledge systems, an interloper of the term hierarchy since at least the 1800s. Hierarchies in knowledge systems include taxonomies, classification systems, or thesauri in information science, and systems for representing information and knowledge to computers, notably ontologies and knowledge representation languages. Hierarchies are the logical underpinning of inference and reasoning in these systems, as well as the scaffolding for classification and inheritance. Hierarchies in knowledge systems express subsumption relations that have flexible variants, which we can represent algorithmically, and thus computationally. This article dissects that variability, leading to a proposed typology of hierarchies useful to knowledge systems. The article argues through a perspective informed by Charles Peirce that natural hierarchies are real, can be logically determined, and are the appropriate basis for knowledge systems. Description logics and semantic language standards reflect this perspective, importantly through their open-world logic and vocabularies for generalized subsumption hierarchies. Recent research suggests possible mechanisms for the emergence of natural hierarchies.
  17. Szostak, R.: Interdisciplinarity and the classification of scholarly documents by phenomena, theories and methods (2007) 0.01 
    0.01372202 = product of:
  0.05488808 = sum of:
    0.05488808 = weight(_text_:26 in 1135) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05488808 = score(doc=1135,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.31214553 = fieldWeight in 1135, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1135)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    12. 2.2012 18:57:26
  18. Szostak, R.: Universal and domain-specific classifications from an interdisciplinary perspective (2010) 0.01 
    0.01372202 = product of:
  0.05488808 = sum of:
    0.05488808 = weight(_text_:26 in 3516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05488808 = score(doc=3516,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.31214553 = fieldWeight in 3516, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3516)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Paradigms and conceptual systems in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Eleventh International ISKO Conference, 23-26 February 2010 Rome, Italy. Edited by Claudio Gnoli and Fulvio Mazzocchi
  19. Qin, J.: Evolving paradigms of knowledge representation and organization : a comparative study of classification, XML/DTD and ontology (2003) 0.01 
    0.013066109 = product of:
  0.052264437 = sum of:
    0.052264437 = sum of:
      0.025279973 = weight(_text_:access in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025279973 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16876608 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04979191 = queryNorm
          0.14979297 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.026984464 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026984464 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17436278 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04979191 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    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
  20. Green, R.; Panzer, M.: ¬The ontological character of classes in the Dewey Decimal Classification 0.01 
    0.012006768 = product of:
  0.048027072 = sum of:
    0.048027072 = weight(_text_:26 in 3530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048027072 = score(doc=3530,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17584132 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04979191 = queryNorm
        0.27312735 = fieldWeight in 3530, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3530)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Source
    Paradigms and conceptual systems in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Eleventh International ISKO conference, Rome, 23-26 February 2010, ed. Claudio Gnoli, Indeks, Frankfurt M

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 48
  • f 3
  • chi 1
  • d 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 46
  • m 4
  • el 2
  • s 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications