Search (131 results, page 1 of 7)

  • × theme_ss:"Klassifikationstheorie: Elemente / Struktur"
  1. Slavic, A.: On the nature and typology of documentary classifications and their use in a networked environment (2007) 0.05 
    0.045227483 = product of:
  0.090454966 = sum of:
    0.009671121 = weight(_text_:information in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009671121 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = 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)
    0.080783844 = sum of:
      0.042300213 = weight(_text_:services in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042300213 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1738033 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047340166 = queryNorm
          0.2433798 = fieldWeight in 780, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=780)
      0.03848363 = weight(_text_:22 in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03848363 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047340166 = 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(2/4)
    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
  2. Lin, W.-Y.C.: ¬The concept and applications of faceted classifications (2006) 0.03 
    0.026927948 = product of:
  0.10771179 = sum of:
    0.10771179 = sum of:
      0.056400284 = weight(_text_:services in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056400284 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1738033 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047340166 = queryNorm
          0.3245064 = fieldWeight in 5083, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5083)
      0.05131151 = weight(_text_:22 in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05131151 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047340166 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5083, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5083)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    The concept of faceted classification has its long history and importance in the human civilization. Recently, more and more consumer Web sites adopt the idea of facet analysis to organize and display their products or services. The aim of this article is to review the origin and develpment of faceted classification, as well as its concepts, essence, advantage and limitation. Further, the applications of faceted classification in various domians have been explored.
    Date
    27. 5.2007 22:19:35
  3. Olson, H.A.: Sameness and difference : a cultural foundation of classification (2001) 0.02 
    0.023561954 = product of:
  0.09424782 = sum of:
    0.09424782 = sum of:
      0.04935025 = weight(_text_:services in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04935025 = score(doc=166,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1738033 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047340166 = queryNorm
          0.28394312 = fieldWeight in 166, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=166)
      0.04489757 = weight(_text_:22 in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04489757 = score(doc=166,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.047340166 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 166, 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=166)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Source
    Library resources and technical services. 45(2001) no.3, S.115-122
  4. Hjoerland, B.: Theories of knowledge organization - theories of knowledge (2017) 0.02 
    0.020995736 = product of:
  0.041991472 = sum of:
    0.019542687 = weight(_text_:information in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019542687 = score(doc=3494,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = 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)
    0.022448786 = product of:
      0.04489757 = sum of:
        0.04489757 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04489757 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047340166 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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
  5. Connaway, L.S.; Sievert, M.C.: Comparison of three classification systems for information on health insurance (1996) 0.02 
    0.019275293 = product of:
  0.038550586 = sum of:
    0.012894828 = weight(_text_:information in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012894828 = score(doc=7242,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = 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)
    0.025655756 = product of:
      0.05131151 = sum of:
        0.05131151 = weight(_text_:22 in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05131151 = score(doc=7242,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047340166 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    22. 4.1997 21:10:19
  6. Garcia Marco, F.J.; Esteban Navarro, M.A.: On some contributions of the cognitive sciences and epistemology to a theory of classification (1993) 0.02 
    0.01895049 = product of:
  0.03790098 = sum of:
    0.016750874 = weight(_text_:information in 5876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016750874 = score(doc=5876,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 5876, 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=5876)
    0.021150107 = product of:
      0.042300213 = sum of:
        0.042300213 = weight(_text_:services in 5876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042300213 = score(doc=5876,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1738033 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047340166 = queryNorm
            0.2433798 = fieldWeight in 5876, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5876)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Intended is first of all a preliminary review of the implications that the new approaches to the theory of classification, mainly from cognitive psychology and epistemology may have for information work and research. As a secondary topic the scientific relations existing among information science, epistemology and the cognitive sciences are discussed. Classification is seen as a central activity in all daily and scientific activities, and, of course, of knowledge organization in information services. There is a mutual implication between classification and conceptualization, as the former moves in a natural way to the latter and the best result elaborated for classification is the concept. Research in concept theory is a need for a theory of classification. In this direction it is of outstanding importance to integrate the achievements of 'natural concept formation theory' (NCFT) as an alternative approach to conceptualization different from the traditional one of logicians and problem solving researchers. In conclusion both approaches are seen as being complementary: the NCFT approach being closer to the user and the logical one being more suitable for experts, including 'expert systems'
  7. Jacob, E.K.: Proposal for a classification of classifications built on Beghtol's distinction between "Naïve Classification" and "Professional Classification" (2010) 0.02 
    0.017996345 = product of:
  0.03599269 = sum of:
    0.016750874 = weight(_text_:information in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016750874 = score(doc=2945,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = 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)
    0.019241815 = product of:
      0.03848363 = sum of:
        0.03848363 = weight(_text_:22 in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03848363 = score(doc=2945,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047340166 = 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)
  8. Beghtol, C.: Naïve classification systems and the global information society (2004) 0.02 
    0.016076691 = product of:
  0.032153383 = sum of:
    0.016118534 = weight(_text_:information in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016118534 = score(doc=3483,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = 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)
    0.016034847 = product of:
      0.032069694 = sum of:
        0.032069694 = weight(_text_:22 in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032069694 = score(doc=3483,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047340166 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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 
    0.016076691 = product of:
  0.032153383 = sum of:
    0.016118534 = weight(_text_:information in 1778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016118534 = score(doc=1778,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = 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)
    0.016034847 = product of:
      0.032069694 = sum of:
        0.032069694 = weight(_text_:22 in 1778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032069694 = score(doc=1778,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047340166 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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. Gnoli, C.; Mei, H.: Freely faceted classification for Web-based information retrieval (2006) 0.02 
    0.015410613 = product of:
  0.030821227 = sum of:
    0.009671121 = weight(_text_:information in 534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009671121 = score(doc=534,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 534, 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=534)
    0.021150107 = product of:
      0.042300213 = sum of:
        0.042300213 = weight(_text_:services in 534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042300213 = score(doc=534,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1738033 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047340166 = queryNorm
            0.2433798 = fieldWeight in 534, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=534)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Content
    Beitrag eines Themenheftes "Knowledge organization systems and services"
  11. 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) 0.01 
    0.014943065 = product of:
  0.02988613 = sum of:
    0.017058253 = weight(_text_:information in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017058253 = score(doc=2346,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = 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)
    0.012827878 = product of:
      0.025655756 = sum of:
        0.025655756 = weight(_text_:22 in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025655756 = score(doc=2346,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047340166 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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
  12. Gnoli, C.: Classifying phenomena : part 4: themes and rhemes (2018) 0.01 
    0.014456468 = product of:
  0.028912935 = sum of:
    0.009671121 = weight(_text_:information in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009671121 = score(doc=4152,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = 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)
    0.019241815 = product of:
      0.03848363 = sum of:
        0.03848363 = weight(_text_:22 in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03848363 = score(doc=4152,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047340166 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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
  13. Molholt, P.: Qualities of classification schemes for the Information Superhighway (1995) 0.01 
    0.013716185 = product of:
  0.02743237 = sum of:
    0.011397525 = weight(_text_:information in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011397525 = score(doc=5562,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = 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)
    0.016034847 = product of:
      0.032069694 = sum of:
        0.032069694 = weight(_text_:22 in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032069694 = score(doc=5562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047340166 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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
  14. Dousa, T.M.: Categories and the architectonics of system in Julius Otto Kaiser's method of systematic indexing (2014) 0.01 
    0.012047057 = product of:
  0.024094114 = sum of:
    0.008059267 = weight(_text_:information in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008059267 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = 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)
    0.016034847 = product of:
      0.032069694 = sum of:
        0.032069694 = weight(_text_:22 in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032069694 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047340166 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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
  15. Bowker, G.C.; Star, S.L.: Sorting things out : classification and its consequences (1999) 0.01 
    0.011609046 = product of:
  0.023218092 = sum of:
    0.00911802 = weight(_text_:information in 733) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00911802 = score(doc=733,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 733, 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=733)
    0.014100071 = product of:
      0.028200142 = sum of:
        0.028200142 = weight(_text_:services in 733) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028200142 = score(doc=733,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1738033 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047340166 = queryNorm
            0.1622532 = fieldWeight in 733, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.6713707 = idf(docFreq=3057, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=733)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Is this book sociology, anthropology, or taxonomy? Sorting Things Out, by communications theorists Geoffrey C. Bowker and Susan Leigh Star, covers a lot of conceptual ground in its effort to sort out exactly how and why we classify and categorize the things and concepts we encounter day to day. But the analysis doesn't stop there; the authors go on to explore what happens to our thinking as a result of our classifications. With great insight and precise academic language, they pick apart our information systems and language structures that lie deeper than the everyday categories we use. The authors focus first on the International Classification of Diseases (ICD), a widely used scheme used by health professionals worldwide, but also look at other health information systems, racial classifications used by South Africa during apartheid, and more. Though it comes off as a bit too academic at times (by the end of the 20th century, most writers should be able to get the spelling of McDonald's restaurant right), the book has a clever charm that thoughtful readers will surely appreciate. A sly sense of humor sneaks into the writing, giving rise to the chapter title "The Kindness of Strangers," for example. After arguing that categorization is both strongly influenced by and a powerful reinforcer of ideology, it follows that revolutions (political or scientific) must change the way things are sorted in order to throw over the old system. Who knew that such simple, basic elements of thought could have such far-reaching consequences? Whether you ultimately place it with social science, linguistics, or (as the authors fear) fantasy, make sure you put Sorting Things Out in your reading pile.
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Knowledge organization 27(2000) no.3, H.175-177 (B. Kwasnik); College and research libraries 61(2000) no.4, S.380-381 (J. Williams); Library resources and technical services 44(2000) no.4, S.107-108 (H.A. Olson); JASIST 51(2000) no.12, S.1149-1150 (T.A. Brooks)
  16. Qin, J.: Evolving paradigms of knowledge representation and organization : a comparative study of classification, XML/DTD and ontology (2003) 0.01 
    0.010972949 = product of:
  0.021945897 = sum of:
    0.00911802 = weight(_text_:information in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00911802 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = 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)
    0.012827878 = product of:
      0.025655756 = sum of:
        0.025655756 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025655756 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047340166 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    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
  17. Maniez, J.: ¬Des classifications aux thesaurus : du bon usage des facettes (1999) 0.01 
    0.009620908 = product of:
  0.03848363 = sum of:
    0.03848363 = product of:
      0.07696726 = sum of:
        0.07696726 = weight(_text_:22 in 6404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07696726 = score(doc=6404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047340166 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6404, 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=6404)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    1. 8.1996 22:01:00
  18. Maniez, J.: ¬Du bon usage des facettes : des classifications aux thésaurus (1999) 0.01 
    0.009620908 = product of:
  0.03848363 = sum of:
    0.03848363 = product of:
      0.07696726 = sum of:
        0.07696726 = weight(_text_:22 in 3773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07696726 = score(doc=3773,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047340166 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3773, 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=3773)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    1. 8.1996 22:01:00
  19. Foskett, D.J.: Systems theory and its relevance to documentary classification (2017) 0.01 
    0.009620908 = product of:
  0.03848363 = sum of:
    0.03848363 = product of:
      0.07696726 = sum of:
        0.07696726 = weight(_text_:22 in 3176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07696726 = score(doc=3176,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16577719 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047340166 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3176, 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=3176)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Date
    6. 5.2017 18:46:22
  20. Jacob, E.K.: Classification and categorization : a difference that makes a difference (2004) 0.01 
    0.0069093825 = product of:
  0.02763753 = sum of:
    0.02763753 = weight(_text_:information in 834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02763753 = score(doc=834,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08310462 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047340166 = queryNorm
        0.3325631 = fieldWeight in 834, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=834)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    Examination of the systemic properties and forms of interaction that characterize classification and categorization reveals fundamental syntactic differences between the structure of classification systems and the structure of categorization systems. These distinctions lead to meaningful differences in the contexts within which information can be apprehended and influence the semantic information available to the individual. Structural and semantic differences between classification and categorization are differences that make a difference in the information environment by influencing the functional activities of an information system and by contributing to its constitution as an information environment.
    Footnote
    Artikel in einem Themenheft: The philosophy of information

Authors

Years

Languages

Types

  • a 120
  • m 8
  • el 6
  • s 3
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications