Search (37 results, page 1 of 2)

0.035131108 = product of:
  0.15808998 = sum of:
    0.08806286 = weight(_text_:germany in 1575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08806286 = score(doc=1575,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22275731 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.39533097 = fieldWeight in 1575, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1575)
    0.07002712 = weight(_text_:data in 1575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07002712 = score(doc=1575,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.5928845 = fieldWeight in 1575, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1575)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to enhance cultural heritage data curation. A core research question of this study is how to share cultural heritage data by using ontologies. A case study was conducted using open government data mapped with the CIDOC-CRM (Conceptual Reference Model). Twelve library-related files in unstructured data format were collected from an open government website, Seoul Metropolitan Government of Korea (http://data.seoul.go.kr). By using the ontologies of the CIDOC CRM 5.1.2, we conducted a mapping process as a way of enhancing cultural heritage information to share information as a data component. We graphed each file then mapped each file in tables. Implications of this study are both the enhanced discoverability of unstructured data and the reusability of mapped information. Issues emerging from this study involve verification of detail for complete compatibility without further input from domain experts.

Source

Metadata and semantics research: 8th Research Conference, MTSR 2014, Karlsruhe, Germany, November 27-29, 2014, Proceedings. Eds.: S. Closs et al

0.0154082095 = product of:
  0.13867389 = sum of:
    0.13867389 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 4162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13867389 = score(doc=4162,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.14721331 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.9419929 = fieldWeight in 4162, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4162)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

The cataloging and classification community was called to highlight 2010 as "The Year of Cataloging Research," and specifically was challenged to generate research ideas, conduct research, and generally promote the development of new research in cataloging. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly has become the most influential journal of research in cataloging and classification since its inception in 1981. The idea behind the research reported here was to give the CCQ editorial board an opportunity to present its point of view about research for cataloging. A Delphi study was conducted in three stages during the 2009-2010 academic year. Members were asked to define the key terms "cataloging," "evidence," and "research," and to develop a research agenda in cataloging. The results reveal a basic core definition of cataloging perceived as a dynamic, active process at the core of information retrieval. An eight point research agenda emerges that is forward-looking and embraces change, along with top-ranked calls for new empirical evidence about catalogs, cataloging, and catalog users.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 48(2010) no.8, S.645-651

0.015295612 = product of:
  0.06883025 = sum of:
    0.058708575 = weight(_text_:germany in 770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058708575 = score(doc=770,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22275731 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.26355398 = fieldWeight in 770, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.963546 = idf(docFreq=308, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=770)
    0.010121676 = product of:
      0.020243352 = sum of:
        0.020243352 = weight(_text_:22 in 770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020243352 = score(doc=770,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13080442 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037353165 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 770, 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=770)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of the research reported here is to improve comprehension of the socially-negotiated identity of concepts in the domain of knowledge organization. Because knowledge organization as a domain has as its focus the order of concepts, both from a theoretical perspective and from an applied perspective, it is important to understand how the domain itself understands the meaning of a concept. Design/methodology/approach - The paper provides an empirical demonstration of how the domain itself understands the meaning of a concept. The paper employs content analysis to demonstrate the ways in which concepts are portrayed in KO concept maps as signs, and they are subjected to evaluative semiotic analysis as a way to understand their meaning. The frame was the entire population of formal proceedings in knowledge organization - all proceedings of the International Society for Knowledge Organization's international conferences (1990-2010) and those of the annual classification workshops of the Special Interest Group for Classification Research of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (SIG/CR). Findings - A total of 344 concept maps were analyzed. There was no discernible chronological pattern. Most concept maps were created by authors who were professors from the USA, Germany, France, or Canada. Roughly half were judged to contain semiotic content. Peirceian semiotics predominated, and tended to convey greater granularity and complexity in conceptual terminology. Nodes could be identified as anchors of conceptual clusters in the domain; the arcs were identifiable as verbal relationship indicators. Saussurian concept maps were more applied than theoretical; Peirceian concept maps had more theoretical content. Originality/value - The paper demonstrates important empirical evidence about the coherence of the domain of knowledge organization. Core values are conveyed across time through the concept maps in this population of conference papers.

Content

Vgl. auch den Beitrag: Treude, L.: Das Problem der Konzeptdefinition in der Wissensorganisation: über einen missglückten Versuch der Klärung. In: LIBREAS: Library ideas. no.22, 2013, S.xx-xx.

0.011707324 = product of:
  0.052682955 = sum of:
    0.032051016 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032051016 = score(doc=260,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14721331 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.21771818 = fieldWeight in 260, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=260)
    0.02063194 = weight(_text_:data in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02063194 = score(doc=260,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 260, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=260)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Studying works allows us to see empirically the problem of instantiation of works, both at large and in the catalog. The linkage of relationships among works is a critical goal for information retrieval because the ability to comprehend and select a specific instantiation of a work is crucial for the advancement of scholarship. Hence, the present study examines the instantiation of works among a set of entities known to be popular-best selling books of the 20th century. A sample of best selling works (fiction and non-fiction) from 1900-1999 was constructed. For each work in the sample, all bibliographic records were identified in both OCLC and RLIN as well as instantiations on the World Wide Web. All but one work in the sample exists in multiple instantiations; many have large networks; and complex networks of instantiations have begun to appear in full text on the Web. The results of this study demonstrate the importance of continuing to gather statistical data about works. Solutions devised for the catalog will need to be modified for use in the chaotic environment of the World Wide Web and its successors.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 44(2007) nos.3/4, S.179-195

0.008875743 = product of:
  0.03994084 = sum of:
    0.024758326 = weight(_text_:data in 1415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024758326 = score(doc=1415,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.2096163 = fieldWeight in 1415, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1415)
    0.015182514 = product of:
      0.030365027 = sum of:
        0.030365027 = weight(_text_:22 in 1415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030365027 = score(doc=1415,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13080442 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037353165 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1415, 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=1415)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Domain analysis reveals the contours of knowledge in diverse discourse communities. The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) conferences represent the cutting edge of research in metadata for the digital age. Beak and Smiraglia (2013) discovered a shared epistemology revealed by co-citation perceptions of the domain, a common ontological base, social semantics, and a limited but focused intent. User groups did not emerge from that analysis, raising an interesting question about the content of core thematic extension versus a highly granular intension. We analyzed keywords from the titles by year to identify core and granular topics as they arose over time. The results showed that only 36 core keywords, e.g. "Dublin Core," "Metadata," "Linked Data," "Applications," etc. represents the domain's extension. However, there was much rich terminology among the granularity, e.g., "development," "description," "interoperability," "analysis," "applications," and "classification" and even "domain" pointed to the domain's intension.

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

0.008546937 = product of:
  0.07692243 = sum of:
    0.07692243 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 3573) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07692243 = score(doc=3573,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14721331 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.52252364 = fieldWeight in 3573, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3573)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 11(1990) nos.3/4, S.1-15

0.008546937 = product of:
  0.07692243 = sum of:
    0.07692243 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07692243 = score(doc=5731,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14721331 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.52252364 = fieldWeight in 5731, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5731)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 40(2005) nos.3/4, S.1-15

0.00796314 = product of:
  0.07166825 = sum of:
    0.07166825 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07166825 = score(doc=789,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.14721331 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.48683268 = fieldWeight in 789, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=789)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Cataloging is at its most interesting when it is comprehended as part of a larger, meaningful, objective. Resource description is a complex task; but the essence of librarianship is curatorship of a collection, and that sense of curatorial responsibility is one of the things that makes resource description into cataloging-that is, professional responsibility is the difference between the task of transcription and the satisfaction of professional decisions well-made. Part of the essential difference is comprehension of the cultural milieu from which specific resources arise, and the modes of scholarship that might be used to nudge them to reveal their secrets for the advancement of knowledge. In this paper I describe a course designed to lend excitement and professional judgment to the education of future catalogers and collection managers by conveying the notion that all documents are, in fact, cultural artifacts. Part of a knowledge-sensitive curriculum for knowledge organization, the purpose of this course is to go beyond the concept of documents as mere packets of information to demonstrate that each is a product of its time and circumstances. Bibliographic skill leads to greater comfort with the intellectual and cultural forces that impel the creation of documents. Students become comfortable with the curatorial side of cataloging - the placement of each document in its cultural milieu as the goal of resource description, rather than the act of description itself.

Footnote

Beitrag eines Themenheftes "The Intellectual and Professional World of Cataloging"

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 45(2008) no.3, S.25-37

0.0074018645 = product of:
  0.06661678 = sum of:
    0.06661678 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 490) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06661678 = score(doc=490,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14721331 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.45251876 = fieldWeight in 490, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=490)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

This paper takes for granted that archival materials will be entered into a catalog in which Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) will be used to provide access. The purposes of subject access are discussed. The matter of selecting the appropriate extent of subject cataloging for archival entities is raised. Archival entities will generally require more detailed subject cataloging than published materials. A scheme for subject analysis of archival materials is presented. LCSH is described briefly, and several archival entities are analyzed and provided with LCSH access points to illustrate the methodology employed. The chief advantages of using LCSH for archival materials are its availability, and its ability to cause archival materials to collocate topically with published materials in integrated online systems.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 11(1990) nos.3/4, S.63-90

0.0070508635 = product of:
  0.06345777 = sum of:
    0.06345777 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06345777 = score(doc=343,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14721331 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.43106002 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Bibliographic control does not differ in substance from one type of material to another. Therefore it is not possible to separate the bibliographic control of music materials entirely from the larger domain of bibliographic control activity. The literature of music librarianship is examined for relevant theoretical explanations. Specific problems of description and access are used to show that, in general, the requirements for bibliographic control of music fit neatly into the theoretical structure for all bibliographic control. The primary purpose of descriptive cataloging of musical objects is to identify and differentiate among objects in a library collection. Where the concept of responsibility is relevant, access is provided through the names of composers or performers. Systematic access is provided through co-equal facets: medium, manifestation, and form.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 5(1985) no.3, S.1-16

0.006043597 = product of:
  0.054392375 = sum of:
    0.054392375 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 441) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054392375 = score(doc=441,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14721331 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.36948 = fieldWeight in 441, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=441)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

The uniform title is viewed historically as an artificial device to collocate works. In music cataloging, problems of multiple manifestations with variant title pages lead to the development of uniform titles that would both collocate and distinguish, and ultimately serve as identifiers for musical works. A principal problem in the authority control of works is recognition of multiple manifestations and the concomitant syndetic depth. Research suggests a low incidence of multiple manifestations among textual works, but hints that a greater incidence might be found among musical works. An empirical study is conducted using a sample of musical works and locating for each all physical manifestations in OCLC and the NUC. Virtually the entire sample of musical works yielded multiple manifestations. A majority of the manifestations had titles proper different from that of the first edition of the work. It is concluded that an authority-controlled collocating device is necessary for musical works, that more references are required, and that links among authority records for works could provide increased syndetic depth.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 9(1989) no.3, S.97-114

0.0050363312 = product of:
  0.04532698 = sum of:
    0.04532698 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04532698 = score(doc=5631,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14721331 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.3079 = fieldWeight in 5631, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5631)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Footnote

Beitrag eines Themenheftes: Historical aspects of cataloging and classification; Part II

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 35(2003) nos.3/4, S.xx-xx

0.0050363312 = product of:
  0.04532698 = sum of:
    0.04532698 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04532698 = score(doc=5652,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14721331 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.3079 = fieldWeight in 5652, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5652)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Footnote

Also published as Cataloging and Classification Quarterly, 35(2002/03)1/2 and 35(2002/03)3/4

Source

Historical aspects of cataloging and classification. Ed.: M.D. Joachim

0.0049857134 = product of:
  0.04487142 = sum of:
    0.04487142 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04487142 = score(doc=5623,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14721331 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.30480546 = fieldWeight in 5623, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5623)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 33(2002) nos.3/4, S.xx-xx

0.0049857134 = product of:
  0.04487142 = sum of:
    0.04487142 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04487142 = score(doc=5627,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14721331 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.30480546 = fieldWeight in 5627, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5627)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 33(2002) nos.3/4, S.xx-xx

0.0049857134 = product of:
  0.04487142 = sum of:
    0.04487142 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 1907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04487142 = score(doc=1907,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14721331 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.30480546 = fieldWeight in 1907, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1907)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 50(2012) no.5/7, S.360-368

0.0042734686 = product of:
  0.038461216 = sum of:
    0.038461216 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038461216 = score(doc=176,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14721331 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.26126182 = fieldWeight in 176, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=176)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 40(2005) nos.3/4, S.135-151

0.0037572712 = product of:
  0.03381544 = sum of:
    0.03381544 = weight(_text_:processing in 4830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03381544 = score(doc=4830,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15121111 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.22363065 = fieldWeight in 4830, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.048147 = idf(docFreq=2097, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4830)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Classification systems are often described as stable reference systems. Sometimes they are accused of being inflexible concerning the coverage of new ideas and scientific fields. Classification as an activity is the basis of all theory-generating research, and also plays a powerful role in social ordering. It is obvious that the ways in which we seek information and in which information is provided has changed dramatically since the emergence of digital information processing and even more with the internet, and web-based technologies. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the notion of a stable knowledge organization classification as a temporary stationary manifestation of an open and evolving system of classification. We compare the structure of the main classes in the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) according to their usage of special auxiliaries to demonstrate the dynamic evolution of the UDC over time, as a stable reference system representing published organized knowledge. We view the ecology of the UDC, and discover that most changes are to the ecology itself as numbers are re-interpreted. This subtle type of change is a key to monitoring the evolution of knowledge as it is represented in the UDC's stable reference system.

0.0036679 = product of:
  0.0330111 = sum of:
    0.0330111 = weight(_text_:data in 4891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0330111 = score(doc=4891,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.118112594 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.2794884 = fieldWeight in 4891, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4891)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

0.003561224 = product of:
  0.032051016 = sum of:
    0.032051016 = weight(_text_:cataloging in 5678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032051016 = score(doc=5678,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14721331 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037353165 = queryNorm
        0.21771818 = fieldWeight in 5678, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9411201 = idf(docFreq=2334, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5678)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 38(2004) nos.3/4, S.xx-xx