Search (39 results, page 1 of 2)

0.030295122 = product of:
  0.12118049 = sum of:
    0.12118049 = sum of:
      0.08411469 = weight(_text_:terminology in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08411469 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.24053115 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045596033 = queryNorm
          0.34970397 = fieldWeight in 780, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=780)
      0.037065797 = weight(_text_:22 in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037065797 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15966953 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.045596033 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.024533452 = product of:
  0.09813381 = sum of:
    0.09813381 = product of:
      0.19626762 = sum of:
        0.19626762 = weight(_text_:terminology in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19626762 = score(doc=6091,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.24053115 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.8159759 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Arguing that an established technical terminology is crucial to the development of a discipline, and that classification terminology is neither well settled nor widely used by its exponents, this paper provides an explanation of some of the concepts generally accepted by classification theorists. In particular, the elaborate terminology generated by S.R. Ranganathan is examined. Definitions are provided for numerous concepts, including "classification"; "characteristics" and "attributes"; the genus-species relationship; the types of classes (canonical, systems, special, and environmental main classes); the kinds of subject (basic, compound, complex); as well as concepts such as facets, isolates, arrays, and chains. Comparisons between different classification systems, specifically the Dewey Decimal Classification, Colon Classification, and Library of Congress Classification, are also made

0.0236993 = product of:
  0.0947972 = sum of:
    0.0947972 = weight(_text_:headings in 833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0947972 = score(doc=833,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22113821 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045596033 = queryNorm
        0.42867854 = fieldWeight in 833, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=833)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article explores the connections between Melvil Dewey and Hegelianism and Charles Cutter and the Scottish Common Sense philosophers. It traces the practice of hierarchy from these philosophical influences to Dewey and Cutter and their legacy to today's Dewey Decimal Classification and Library of Congress Subject Headings. The ubiquity of hierarchy is linked to Dewey's and Cutter's metaphor of organizing the mob of information into an orderly army using the tool of logic.

0.020736888 = product of:
  0.08294755 = sum of:
    0.08294755 = weight(_text_:headings in 3530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08294755 = score(doc=3530,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22113821 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045596033 = queryNorm
        0.37509373 = fieldWeight in 3530, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3530)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Classes in the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system function as neighborhoods around focal topics in captions and notes. Topical neighborhoods are generated through specialization and instantiation, complex topic synthesis, index terms and mapped headings, hierarchical force, rules for choosing between numbers, development of the DDC over time, and use of the system in classifying resources. Implications of representation using a formal knowledge representation language are explored.

0.016757937 = product of:
  0.06703175 = sum of:
    0.06703175 = weight(_text_:headings in 2824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06703175 = score(doc=2824,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.22113821 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045596033 = queryNorm
        0.3031215 = fieldWeight in 2824, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2824)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

In Chapter 10, "Controlled indexing languages," Professor Broughton states that a classification scheme is truly a language "since it permits communication and the exchange of information" (p. 89), a Statement with which this reviewer wholly agrees. Chapter 11, however, "Word-based approaches to retrieval," moves us to a different field altogether, offering only a narrow view of the whole world of controlled indexing languages such as thesauri, and presenting disconnected discussions of alphabetical filing, form and structure of subject headings, modern developments in alphabetical subject indexing, etc. Chapters 12 and 13 focus an the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), without even a passing reference to existing subject headings lists in other languages (French RAMEAU, German SWK, etc.). If it is not surprising to see a section on subject headings in a book on classification, the two subjects being taught together in most library schools, the location of this section in the middle of this particular book is more difficult to understand. Chapter 14 brings the reader back to classification, for a discussion of essentials of classification scheme application. The following five chapters present in turn each one of the three major and currently used bibliographic classification schemes, in order of increasing complexity and difficulty of application. The Library of Congress Classification (LCC), the easiest to use, is covered in chapters 15 and 16. The Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) deserves only a one-chapter treatment (Chapter 17), while the functionalities of the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC), which Professor Broughton knows extremely well, are described in chapters 18 and 19. Chapter 20 is a general discussion of faceted classification, on par with the first seven chapters for its theoretical content. Chapter 21, an interesting last chapter on managing classification, addresses down-to-earth matters such as the cost of classification, the need for re-classification, advantages and disadvantages of using print versions or e-versions of classification schemes, choice of classification scheme, general versus special scheme. But although the questions are interesting, the chapter provides only a very general overview of what appropriate answers might be. To facilitate reading and learning, summaries are strategically located at various places in the text, and always before switching to a related subject. Professor Broughton's choice of examples is always interesting, and sometimes even entertaining (see for example "Inside out: A brief history of underwear" (p. 71)). With many examples, however, and particularly those that appear in the five chapters an classification scheme applications, the novice reader would have benefited from more detailed explanations. On page 221, for example, "The history and social influence of the potato" results in this analysis of concepts: Potato - Sociology, and in the UDC class number: 635.21:316. What happened to the "history" aspect? Some examples are not very convincing: in Animals RT Reproduction and Art RT Reproduction (p. 102), the associative relationship is not appropriate as it is used to distinguish homographs and would do nothing to help either the indexer or the user at the retrieval stage.
Essential Classification is also an exercise book. Indeed, it contains a number of practical exercises and activities in every chapter, along with suggested answers. Unfortunately, the answers are too often provided without the justifications and explanations that students would no doubt demand. The author has taken great care to explain all technical terms in her text, but formal definitions are also gathered in an extensive 172-term Glossary; appropriately, these terms appear in bold type the first time they are used in the text. A short, very short, annotated bibliography of standard classification textbooks and of manuals for the use of major classification schemes is provided. A detailed 11-page index completes the set of learning aids which will be useful to an audience of students in their effort to grasp the basic concepts of the theory and the practice of document classification in a traditional environment. Essential Classification is a fine textbook. However, this reviewer deplores the fact that it presents only a very "traditional" view of classification, without much reference to newer environments such as the Internet where classification also manifests itself in various forms. In Essential Classification, books are always used as examples, and we have to take the author's word that traditional classification practices and tools can also be applied to other types of documents and elsewhere than in the traditional library. Vanda Broughton writes, for example, that "Subject headings can't be used for physical arrangement" (p. 101), but this is not entirely true. Subject headings can be used for physical arrangement of vertical files, for example, with each folder bearing a simple or complex heading which is then used for internal organization. And if it is true that subject headings cannot be reproduced an the spine of [physical] books (p. 93), the situation is certainly different an the World Wide Web where subject headings as metadata can be most useful in ordering a collection of hot links. The emphasis is also an the traditional paperbased, rather than an the electronic version of classification schemes, with excellent justifications of course. The reality is, however, that supporting organizations (LC, OCLC, etc.) are now providing great quality services online, and that updates are now available only in an electronic format and not anymore on paper. E-based versions of classification schemes could be safely ignored in a theoretical text, but they have to be described and explained in a textbook published in 2005. One last comment: Professor Broughton tends to use the same term, "classification" to represent the process (as in classification is grouping) and the tool (as in constructing a classification, using a classification, etc.). Even in the Glossary where classification is first well-defined as a process, and classification scheme as "a set of classes ...", the definition of classification scheme continues: "the classification consists of a vocabulary (...) and syntax..." (p. 296-297). Such an ambiguous use of the term classification seems unfortunate and unnecessarily confusing in an otherwise very good basic textbook an categorization of concepts and subjects, document organization and subject representation."

0.014812064 = product of:
  0.059248257 = sum of:
    0.059248257 = weight(_text_:headings in 323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059248257 = score(doc=323,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22113821 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045596033 = queryNorm
        0.2679241 = fieldWeight in 323, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=323)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The spread of many new media and formats is changing the scenario faced by knowledge organizers: as printed monographs are not the only standard form of knowledge carrier anymore, the traditional kind of knowledge organization (KO) systems based on academic disciplines is put into question. A sounder foundation can be provided by an analysis of the different dimensions concurring to form the content of any knowledge item-what Brian Vickery described as the steps "from the world to the classifier." The ultimate referents of documents are the phenomena of the real world, that can be ordered by ontology, the study of what exists. Phenomena coexist in subjects with the perspectives by which they are considered, pertaining to epistemology, and with the formal features of knowledge carriers, adding a further, pragmatic layer. All these dimensions can be accounted for in metadata, but are often done so in mixed ways, making indexes less rigorous and interoperable. For example, while facet analysis was originally developed for subject indexing, many "faceted" interfaces today mix subject facets with form facets, and schemes presented as "ontologies" for the "semantic Web" also code for non-semantic information. In bibliographic classifications, phenomena are often confused with the disciplines dealing with them, the latter being assumed to be the most useful starting point, for users will have either one or another perspective. A general citation order of dimensions- phenomena, perspective, carrier-is recommended, helping to concentrate most relevant information at the beginning of headings.

0.014019116 = product of:
  0.056076463 = sum of:
    0.056076463 = product of:
      0.11215293 = sum of:
        0.11215293 = weight(_text_:terminology in 1603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11215293 = score(doc=1603,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24053115 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.46627194 = fieldWeight in 1603, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1603)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Discusses the basic criteria for comparison of classification for libraries. Identifies a set of intellectual criteria, derived from the general theory of library classification as expounded by Dewey, Bliss, and Ranganathan. Compares LC, DC, and BC in relation criteria namely - order, university, hospitality, adaptability, terminology, relationship, synthesis, notational features - simplicity, brevity, expressiveness, specifity, synonymity, flexibility, correlation, case of use, revision and practical use. Highlights the value of comparative studies among classification schemes

0.012266726 = product of:
  0.049066905 = sum of:
    0.049066905 = product of:
      0.09813381 = sum of:
        0.09813381 = weight(_text_:terminology in 3752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09813381 = score(doc=3752,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24053115 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.40798795 = fieldWeight in 3752, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3752)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Enthält folgende Kapitel: (1) Definition, need and purpose of classification, (2) History of library classification, (3) Terminology of classification, (4) Development of a theory of classification, (5) Work of classification in three planes and their interrelationship, (6) Work of classification in idea plane, (7) Verbal plane, (8) Notation, definition, need functions, (9) Multidimensional nature of subjects, (10) Growing universe of subjects: problems and solutions, (11) Postulational approach to classification, (12) Formation of sharpening of isolates, (13) Species of classification schemes, (14) DDC, UDC and CC, (15) Designing the depth schedules of classification, (16) Recent trends in classification

0.012266726 = product of:
  0.049066905 = sum of:
    0.049066905 = product of:
      0.09813381 = sum of:
        0.09813381 = weight(_text_:terminology in 931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09813381 = score(doc=931,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24053115 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.40798795 = fieldWeight in 931, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=931)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Library classification traces the origins of the subject and leads an to the latest developments in it. This user-friendly text explains concepts through analogies, diagrams, and tables. The fundamental but important topics an terminology of classification has been uniquely explained. The book deals with the recent trends in the use of computers in cataloguing including on-line systems, artificial intelligence systems etc. With its up-to-date and comprehensive coverage the book will serve as a degree students of Library and Information Science and also prove to be invaluable reference material to professionals and researchers.

0.012266726 = product of:
  0.049066905 = sum of:
    0.049066905 = product of:
      0.09813381 = sum of:
        0.09813381 = weight(_text_:terminology in 3846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09813381 = score(doc=3846,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24053115 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.40798795 = fieldWeight in 3846, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3846)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.01184965 = product of:
  0.0473986 = sum of:
    0.0473986 = weight(_text_:headings in 3636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0473986 = score(doc=3636,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22113821 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045596033 = queryNorm
        0.21433927 = fieldWeight in 3636, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3636)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Brian C. Vickery, Director and Professor, School of Library, Archive and Information Studies, University College, London, is a prolific writer on classification and information retrieval. This paper was one of the earliest to present initial efforts by the Classification Research Group (q.v.). In it he clearly outlined the need for classification in subject indexing, which, at the time he wrote, was not a commonplace understanding. In fact, some indexing systems were made in the first place specifically to avoid general classification systems which were out of date in all fast-moving disciplines, especially in the "hard" sciences. Vickery picked up Julia Pettee's work (q.v.) an the concealed classification in subject headings (1947) and added to it, mainly adopting concepts from the work of S. R. Ranganathan (q.v.). He had already published a paper an notation in classification, pointing out connections between notation, words, and the concepts which they represent. He was especially concerned about the structure of notational symbols as such symbols represented relationships among subjects. Vickery also emphasized that index terms cover all aspects of a subject so that, in addition to having a basis in classification, the ideal index system should also have standardized nomenclature, as weIl as show evidence of a systematic classing of elementary terms. The necessary linkage between system and terms should be one of a number of methods, notably:

0.010514337 = product of:
  0.042057347 = sum of:
    0.042057347 = product of:
      0.08411469 = sum of:
        0.08411469 = weight(_text_:terminology in 2069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08411469 = score(doc=2069,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24053115 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.34970397 = fieldWeight in 2069, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2069)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This book provides a coherent account of the theory of classification. It discusses the contributions made by theoreticians like E.C. Richardson, J.B. Brown, W. Hulme, W.C. Berwick Sayers, H.E. Bliss and S.R. Ranganathan. However, the theory put forward by S.R. Ranganathan predominates the whole book because his contribution is far more than anybody else's. Five major schemes - DDC, UDC, LCC, CC, and BC - have also been discussed. Library classification is a specialized area of study. In recent years, library classification has become a vast and complicated field of study using highly technical terminology. A special attempt has been made to provide descriptions as simple and direct as could be possible. To illustrate the theory of classification, large number of examples have been given from all major schemes so that an average student ould also grasp the concepts easily. This book has been especially written to meet the requirements of students, preparing for their library science, documentation, information science diplomas and degrees.

0.009266449 = product of:
  0.037065797 = sum of:
    0.037065797 = product of:
      0.07413159 = sum of:
        0.07413159 = weight(_text_:22 in 6404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07413159 = score(doc=6404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15966953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = 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

0.009266449 = product of:
  0.037065797 = sum of:
    0.037065797 = product of:
      0.07413159 = sum of:
        0.07413159 = weight(_text_:22 in 3773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07413159 = score(doc=3773,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15966953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = 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

0.009266449 = product of:
  0.037065797 = sum of:
    0.037065797 = product of:
      0.07413159 = sum of:
        0.07413159 = weight(_text_:22 in 3176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07413159 = score(doc=3176,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15966953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = 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

0.008761947 = product of:
  0.03504779 = sum of:
    0.03504779 = product of:
      0.07009558 = sum of:
        0.07009558 = weight(_text_:terminology in 3023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07009558 = score(doc=3023,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24053115 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.29141995 = fieldWeight in 3023, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3023)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Relationships between Knowledge Organization in LIS and Scientific & Scholarly Classifications In her paper "Classification for Information Retrieval and Classification for Knowledge Discovery: Relationships between 'Professional' and 'Naive' Classifications" (KO v30, no.2, 2003), Beghtol outlines how Scholarly activities and research lead to classification systems which subsequently are disseminated in publications which are classified in information retrieval systems, retrieved by the users and again used in Scholarly activities and so on. We think this model is correct and that its point is important. What we are reacting to is the fact that Beghtol describes the Classifications developed by scholars as "naive" while she describes the Classifications developed by librarians and information scientists as "professional." We fear that this unfortunate terminology is rooted in deeply ar chored misjudgments about the relationships between scientific and Scholarly classification an the one side and LIS Classifications an the other. Only a correction of this misjudgment may give us in the field of knowledge organization a Chance to do a job that is not totally disrespected and disregarded by the rest of the intellectual world.

0.008761947 = product of:
  0.03504779 = sum of:
    0.03504779 = product of:
      0.07009558 = sum of:
        0.07009558 = weight(_text_:terminology in 3849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07009558 = score(doc=3849,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.24053115 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.29141995 = fieldWeight in 3849, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.2752647 = idf(docFreq=614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3849)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Various fields, each with its own theories, techniques, and tools, are concerned with identifying and representing the conceptual structure of specific knowledge domains. This paper compares facet analysis, an analytic technique coming out of knowledge organization (especially as undertaken by members of the Classification Research Group (CRG)), with semantic frame analysis, an analytic technique coming out of lexical semantics (especially as undertaken by the developers of Frame-Net) The investigation addresses three questions: 1) how do CRG-style facet analysis and semantic frame analysis characterize the conceptual structures that they identify?; 2) how similar are the techniques they use?; and, 3) how similar are the conceptual structures they produce? Facet analysis is concerned with the logical categories underlying the terminology of an entire field, while semantic frame analysis is concerned with the participant-and-prop structure manifest in sentences about a type of situation or event. When their scope of application is similar, as, for example, in the areas of the performing arts or education, the resulting facets and semantic frame elements often bear striking resemblance, without being the same; facets are more often expressed as semantic types, while frame elements are more often expressed as roles.

0.007406032 = product of:
  0.029624129 = sum of:
    0.029624129 = weight(_text_:headings in 2467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029624129 = score(doc=2467,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22113821 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045596033 = queryNorm
        0.13396205 = fieldWeight in 2467, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2467)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This is a classified, annotated bibliography about how to design faceted classification systems and make them usable on the World Wide Web. It is the first of three works I will be doing. The second, based on the material here and elsewhere, will discuss how to actually make the faceted system and put it online. The third will be a report of how I did just that, what worked, what didn't, and what I learned. Almost every article or book listed here begins with an explanation of what a faceted classification system is, so I won't (but see Steckel in Background below if you don't already know). They all agree that faceted systems are very appropriate for the web. Even pre-web articles (such as Duncan's in Background, below) assert that hypertext and facets will go together well. Combined, it is possible to take a set of documents and classify them or apply subject headings to describe what they are about, then build a navigational structure so that any user, no matter how he or she approaches the material, no matter what his or her goals, can move and search in a way that makes sense to them, but still get to the same useful results as someone else following a different path to the same goal. There is no one way that everyone will always use when looking for information. The more flexible the organization of the information, the more accommodating it is. Facets are more flexible for hypertext browsing than any enumerative or hierarchical system.

0.0061776326 = product of:
  0.02471053 = sum of:
    0.02471053 = product of:
      0.04942106 = sum of:
        0.04942106 = weight(_text_:22 in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04942106 = score(doc=7242,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15966953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 4.1997 21:10:19

0.0061776326 = product of:
  0.02471053 = sum of:
    0.02471053 = product of:
      0.04942106 = sum of:
        0.04942106 = weight(_text_:22 in 1171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04942106 = score(doc=1171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15966953 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045596033 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1171, 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=1171)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Bulletin d'informations de l'Association des Bibliothecaires Francais. 1997, no.175, S.22-23