Search (98 results, page 1 of 5)

  • × theme_ss:"Klassifikationstheorie: Elemente / Struktur"
  1. Shera, J.H.: Pattern, structure, and conceptualization in classification for information retrieval (1957) 0.09 
    0.09111415 = product of:
  0.13667122 = sum of:
    0.08786041 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08786041 = score(doc=1287,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15490976 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051211275 = queryNorm
        0.5671716 = fieldWeight in 1287, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1287)
    0.04881081 = product of:
      0.09762162 = sum of:
        0.09762162 = weight(_text_:conference in 1287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09762162 = score(doc=1287,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19418365 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211275 = queryNorm
            0.50272834 = fieldWeight in 1287, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1287)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Source
    Proceedings of the International Study Conference on Classification for Information Retrieval, held at Beatrice Webb House, Dorking, England, 13.-17.5.1957
  2. Ranganathan, S.R.: Library classification as a discipline (1957) 0.09 
    0.08628473 = product of:
  0.12942709 = sum of:
    0.07248114 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07248114 = score(doc=564,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15490976 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051211275 = queryNorm
        0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 564, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=564)
    0.056945946 = product of:
      0.11389189 = sum of:
        0.11389189 = weight(_text_:conference in 564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11389189 = score(doc=564,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19418365 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211275 = queryNorm
            0.5865164 = fieldWeight in 564, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=564)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Source
    Proceedings of the International Study Conference on Classification for Information Retrieval, held at Beatrice Webb House,Dorking, England, 13.-17.5.1957
  3. ¬The need for a faceted classification as the basis of all methods of information retrieval : Memorandum of the Classification Research Group (1997) 0.08 
    0.08243646 = product of:
  0.12365468 = sum of:
    0.058573607 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058573607 = score(doc=562,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15490976 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051211275 = queryNorm
        0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
    0.065081075 = product of:
      0.13016215 = sum of:
        0.13016215 = weight(_text_:conference in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13016215 = score(doc=562,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.19418365 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211275 = queryNorm
            0.6703044 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Footnote
    Wiederabdruck aus: Proceedings of the International Study Conference on Classification for Information Retrieval, Dorking. London: Aslib 1957.
    Source
    From classification to 'knowledge organization': Dorking revisited or 'past is prelude'. A collection of reprints to commemorate the firty year span between the Dorking Conference (First International Study Conference on Classification Research 1957) and the Sixth International Study Conference on Classification Research (London 1997). Ed.: A. Gilchrist
  4. Jacob, E.K.: Proposal for a classification of classifications built on Beghtol's distinction between "Naïve Classification" and "Professional Classification" (2010) 0.08 
    0.08100312 = product of:
  0.12150468 = sum of:
    0.031063346 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031063346 = score(doc=2945,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15490976 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051211275 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2945, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2945)
    0.09044133 = sum of:
      0.04881081 = weight(_text_:conference in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04881081 = score(doc=2945,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19418365 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051211275 = queryNorm
          0.25136417 = fieldWeight in 2945, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2945)
      0.041630525 = weight(_text_:22 in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041630525 = score(doc=2945,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17933317 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051211275 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    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)
  5. Beghtol, C.: Naïve classification systems and the global information society (2004) 0.07 
    0.074650854 = product of:
  0.11197628 = sum of:
    0.036608502 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036608502 = score(doc=3483,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15490976 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051211275 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 3483, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3483)
    0.07536778 = sum of:
      0.040675674 = weight(_text_:conference in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040675674 = score(doc=3483,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19418365 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051211275 = queryNorm
          0.20947012 = fieldWeight in 3483, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3483)
      0.034692105 = weight(_text_:22 in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034692105 = score(doc=3483,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17933317 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051211275 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    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
  6. Vickery, B.C.: Relations between subject fields : problems of constructing a general classification (1957) 0.07 
    0.07395834 = product of:
  0.110937506 = sum of:
    0.062126692 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.062126692 = score(doc=566,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15490976 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051211275 = queryNorm
        0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 566, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=566)
    0.04881081 = product of:
      0.09762162 = sum of:
        0.09762162 = weight(_text_:conference in 566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09762162 = score(doc=566,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19418365 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211275 = queryNorm
            0.50272834 = fieldWeight in 566, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=566)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Source
    Proceedings of the International Study Conference on Classification for Information Retrieval, held at Beatrice Webb House, Dorking, England, 13.-17.5.1957
  7. Dousa, T.M.: Categories and the architectonics of system in Julius Otto Kaiser's method of systematic indexing (2014) 0.07 
    0.0675026 = product of:
  0.1012539 = sum of:
    0.025886122 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025886122 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15490976 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051211275 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 1418, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1418)
    0.07536778 = sum of:
      0.040675674 = weight(_text_:conference in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040675674 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19418365 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051211275 = queryNorm
          0.20947012 = fieldWeight in 1418, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1418)
      0.034692105 = weight(_text_:22 in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034692105 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17933317 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051211275 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    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
  8. Vickery, B.C.: Structure and function in retrieval languages (1997) 0.07 
    0.06518644 = product of:
  0.09777966 = sum of:
    0.041417796 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041417796 = score(doc=572,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15490976 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051211275 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 572, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=572)
    0.05636187 = product of:
      0.11272374 = sum of:
        0.11272374 = weight(_text_:conference in 572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11272374 = score(doc=572,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.19418365 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211275 = queryNorm
            0.58050066 = fieldWeight in 572, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=572)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Source
    From classification to 'knowledge organization': Dorking revisited or 'past is prelude'. A collection of reprints to commemorate the firty year span between the Dorking Conference (First International Study Conference on Classification Research 1957) and the Sixth International Study Conference on Classification Research (London 1997). Ed.: A. Gilchrist
  9. Qin, J.: Evolving paradigms of knowledge representation and organization : a comparative study of classification, XML/DTD and ontology (2003) 0.05 
    0.054002084 = product of:
  0.08100312 = sum of:
    0.020708898 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020708898 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15490976 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051211275 = queryNorm
        0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
    0.060294222 = sum of:
      0.032540537 = weight(_text_:conference in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032540537 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19418365 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051211275 = queryNorm
          0.1675761 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.027753685 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027753685 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17933317 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051211275 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    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
    Source
    Challenges in knowledge representation and organization for the 21st century: Integration of knowledge across boundaries. Proceedings of the 7th ISKO International Conference Granada, Spain, July 10-13, 2002. Ed.: M. López-Huertas
  10. Karamuftuoglu, M.: Need for a systemic theory of classification in information science (2007) 0.05 
    0.052139133 = product of:
  0.0782087 = sum of:
    0.0538033 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0538033 = score(doc=615,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15490976 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051211275 = queryNorm
        0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 615, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=615)
    0.024405405 = product of:
      0.04881081 = sum of:
        0.04881081 = weight(_text_:conference in 615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04881081 = score(doc=615,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19418365 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211275 = queryNorm
            0.25136417 = fieldWeight in 615, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=615)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    In the article, the author aims to clarify some of the issues surrounding the discussion regarding the usefulness of a substantive classification theory in information science (IS) by means of a broad perspective. By utilizing a concrete example from the High Accuracy Retrieval from Documents (HARD) track of a Text REtrieval Conference (TREC), the author suggests that the bag of words approach to information retrieval (IR) and techniques such as relevance feedback have significant limitations in expressing and resolving complex user information needs. He argues that a comprehensive analysis of information needs involves explicating often-implicit assumptions made by the authors of scholarly documents, as well as everyday texts such as news articles. He also argues that progress in IS can be furthered by developing general theories that are applicable to multiple domains. The concrete example of application of the domain-analytic approach to subject analysis in IS to the aesthetic evaluation of works of information arts is used to support this argument.
  11. Slavic, A.; Cordeiro, M.I.: Core requirements for automation of analytico-synthetic classifications (2004) 0.05 
    0.045557074 = product of:
  0.06833561 = sum of:
    0.043930206 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043930206 = score(doc=2651,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15490976 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051211275 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 2651, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2651)
    0.024405405 = product of:
      0.04881081 = sum of:
        0.04881081 = weight(_text_:conference in 2651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04881081 = score(doc=2651,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19418365 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211275 = queryNorm
            0.25136417 = fieldWeight in 2651, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2651)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    The paper analyses the importance of data presentation and modelling and its role in improving the management, use and exchange of analytico-synthetic classifications in automated systems. Inefficiencies, in this respect, hinder the automation of classification systems that offer the possibility of building compound index/search terms. The lack of machine readable data expressing the semantics and structure of a classification vocabulary has negative effects on information management and retrieval, thus restricting the potential of both automated systems and classifications themselves. The authors analysed the data representation structure of three general analytico-synthetic classification systems (BC2-Bliss Bibliographic Classification; BSO-Broad System of Ordering; UDC-Universal Decimal Classification) and put forward some core requirements for classification data representation
    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
    Theme
    Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval
  12. Winske, E.: ¬The development and structure of an urban, regional, and local documents classification scheme (1996) 0.04 
    0.043034222 = product of:
  0.12910266 = sum of:
    0.12910266 = sum of:
      0.08053372 = weight(_text_:conference in 7241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08053372 = score(doc=7241,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.19418365 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051211275 = queryNorm
          0.41472968 = fieldWeight in 7241, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7241)
      0.048568945 = weight(_text_:22 in 7241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048568945 = score(doc=7241,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17933317 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051211275 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 7241, 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=7241)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Footnote
    Paper presented at conference on 'Local documents, a new classification scheme' at the Research Caucus of the Florida Library Association Annual Conference, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 22 Apr 95
  13. Classification research for knowledge representation and organization : Proc. of the 5th Int. Study Conf. on Classification Research, Toronto, Canada, 24.-28.6.1991 (1992) 0.04 
    0.03724372 = product of:
  0.05586558 = sum of:
    0.03472988 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03472988 = score(doc=2072,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.15490976 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051211275 = queryNorm
        0.22419426 = fieldWeight in 2072, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2072)
    0.0211357 = product of:
      0.0422714 = sum of:
        0.0422714 = weight(_text_:conference in 2072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0422714 = score(doc=2072,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.19418365 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211275 = queryNorm
            0.21768776 = fieldWeight in 2072, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2072)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    This volume deals with both theoretical and empirical research in classification and encompasses universal classification systems, special classification systems, thesauri and the place of classification in a broad spectrum of document and information systems. Papers fall into one or three major areas as follows: 1) general principles and policies 2) structure and logic in classification; and empirical investigation; classification in the design of various types of document/information systems. The papers originate from the ISCCR '91 conference and have been selected according to the following criteria: relevance to the conference theme; importance of the topic in the representation and organization of knowledge; quality; and originality in terms of potential contribution to research and new knowledge.
    Content
    Enthält die Beiträge: SVENONIUS, E.: Classification: prospects, problems, and possibilities; BEALL, J.: Editing the Dewey Decimal Classification online: the evolution of the DDC database; BEGHTOL, C.: Toward a theory of fiction analysis for information storage and retrieval; CRAVEN, T.C.: Concept relation structures and their graphic display; FUGMANN, R.: Illusory goals in information science research; GILCHRIST, A.: UDC: the 1990's and beyond; GREEN, R.: The expression of syntagmatic relationships in indexing: are frame-based index languages the answer?; HUMPHREY, S.M.: Use and management of classification systems for knowledge-based indexing; MIKSA, F.L.: The concept of the universe of knowledge and the purpose of LIS classification; SCOTT, M. u. A.F. FONSECA: Methodology for functional appraisal of records and creation of a functional thesaurus; ALBRECHTSEN, H.: PRESS: a thesaurus-based information system for software reuse; AMAESHI, B.: A preliminary AAT compatible African art thesaurus; CHATTERJEE, A.: Structures of Indian classification systems of the pre-Ranganathan era and their impact on the Colon Classification; COCHRANE, P.A.: Indexing and searching thesauri, the Janus or Proteus of information retrieval; CRAVEN, T.C.: A general versus a special algorithm in the graphic display of thesauri; DAHLBERG, I.: The basis of a new universal classification system seen from a philosophy of science point of view: DRABENSTOTT, K.M., RIESTER, L.C. u. B.A.DEDE: Shelflisting using expert systems; FIDEL, R.: Thesaurus requirements for an intermediary expert system; GREEN, R.: Insights into classification from the cognitive sciences: ramifications for index languages; GROLIER, E. de: Towards a syndetic information retrieval system; GUENTHER, R.: The USMARC format for classification data: development and implementation; HOWARTH, L.C.: Factors influencing policies for the adoption and integration of revisions to classification schedules; HUDON, M.: Term definitions in subject thesauri: the Canadian literacy thesaurus experience; HUSAIN, S.: Notational techniques for the accomodation of subjects in Colon Classification 7th edition: theoretical possibility vis-à-vis practical need; KWASNIK, B.H. u. C. JORGERSEN: The exploration by means of repertory grids of semantic differences among names of official documents; MICCO, M.: Suggestions for automating the Library of Congress Classification schedules; PERREAULT, J.M.: An essay on the prehistory of general categories (II): G.W. Leibniz, Conrad Gesner; REES-POTTER, L.K.: How well do thesauri serve the social sciences?; REVIE, C.W. u. G. SMART: The construction and the use of faceted classification schema in technical domains; ROCKMORE, M.: Structuring a flexible faceted thsaurus record for corporate information retrieval; ROULIN, C.: Sub-thesauri as part of a metathesaurus; SMITH, L.C.: UNISIST revisited: compatibility in the context of collaboratories; STILES, W.G.: Notes concerning the use chain indexing as a possible means of simulating the inductive leap within artificial intelligence; SVENONIUS, E., LIU, S. u. B. SUBRAHMANYAM: Automation in chain indexing; TURNER, J.: Structure in data in the Stockshot database at the National Film Board of Canada; VIZINE-GOETZ, D.: The Dewey Decimal Classification as an online classification tool; WILLIAMSON, N.J.: Restructuring UDC: problems and possibilies; WILSON, A.: The hierarchy of belief: ideological tendentiousness in universal classification; WILSON, B.F.: An evaluation of the systematic botany schedule of the Universal Decimal Classification (English full edition, 1979); ZENG, L.: Research and development of classification and thesauri in China; CONFERENCE SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
    Theme
    Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval
  14. Gnoli, C.: Naturalism vs pragmatism in knowledge organization (2004) 0.04 
    0.03697917 = product of:
  0.055468753 = sum of:
    0.031063346 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031063346 = score(doc=2663,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15490976 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051211275 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2663, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2663)
    0.024405405 = product of:
      0.04881081 = sum of:
        0.04881081 = weight(_text_:conference in 2663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04881081 = score(doc=2663,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19418365 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211275 = queryNorm
            0.25136417 = fieldWeight in 2663, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2663)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Several authors remark that categories used in languages, including indexing ones, are affected by cultural biases, and do not reflect reality in an objective way. Hence knowledge organization would essentially be determined by pragmatic factors. However, human categories are connected with the structure of reality through biological bonds, and this allows for a naturalistic approach too. Naturalism has been adopted by Farradane in proposing relational categories, and by Dahlberg and the CRG in applying the theory of integrative levels to general classification schemes. The latter is especially relevant for possible developments in making the structure of schemes independent from disciplines, and in applying it to digital information retrieval.
    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
  15. Kwasnik, B.H.: ¬The role of classification in knowledge representation (1999) 0.03 
    0.03458574 = product of:
  0.05187861 = sum of:
    0.031063346 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031063346 = score(doc=2464,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15490976 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051211275 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2464, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2464)
    0.020815263 = product of:
      0.041630525 = sum of:
        0.041630525 = weight(_text_:22 in 2464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041630525 = score(doc=2464,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211275 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2464, 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=2464)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Source
    Library trends. 48(1999) no.1, S.22-47
    Theme
    Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval
  16. Slavic, A.: On the nature and typology of documentary classifications and their use in a networked environment (2007) 0.03 
    0.03458574 = product of:
  0.05187861 = sum of:
    0.031063346 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031063346 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15490976 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051211275 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 780, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=780)
    0.020815263 = product of:
      0.041630525 = sum of:
        0.041630525 = weight(_text_:22 in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041630525 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17933317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211275 = 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(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Date
    22.12.2007 17:22:31
    Theme
    Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval
  17. McIlwaine, I.C.: ¬A question of place (2004) 0.03 
    0.030815974 = product of:
  0.04622396 = sum of:
    0.025886122 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025886122 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15490976 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051211275 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 2650, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2650)
    0.020337837 = product of:
      0.040675674 = sum of:
        0.040675674 = weight(_text_:conference in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040675674 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19418365 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211275 = queryNorm
            0.20947012 = fieldWeight in 2650, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2650)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    This paper looks at the problems raised by maintaining an Area Table in a general scheme of classification. It examines the tools available to assist in producing a standardized listing and demonstrates how recent developments in the Universal Decimal Classification enable users to have a retrieval tool suitable for use in a networked environment which acts as both a gazetteer and a classification.
    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
  18. Howarth, L.C.; Jansen, E.H.: Towards a typology of warrant for 21st century knowledge organization systems (2014) 0.03 
    0.030147111 = product of:
  0.09044133 = sum of:
    0.09044133 = sum of:
      0.04881081 = weight(_text_:conference in 1425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04881081 = score(doc=1425,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19418365 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051211275 = queryNorm
          0.25136417 = fieldWeight in 1425, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1425)
      0.041630525 = weight(_text_:22 in 1425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041630525 = score(doc=1425,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17933317 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051211275 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1425, 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=1425)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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
  19. Vukadin, A.; Slavic, A.: Challenges of facet analysis and concept placement in Universal Classifications : the example of architecture in UDC (2014) 0.03 
    0.030147111 = product of:
  0.09044133 = sum of:
    0.09044133 = sum of:
      0.04881081 = weight(_text_:conference in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04881081 = score(doc=1428,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19418365 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051211275 = queryNorm
          0.25136417 = fieldWeight in 1428, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1428)
      0.041630525 = weight(_text_:22 in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041630525 = score(doc=1428,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17933317 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051211275 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1428, 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=1428)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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
  20. Classification Research Group: ¬The need for a faceted classification as the basis of all methods of information retrieval (1985) 0.03 
    0.028844034 = product of:
  0.04326605 = sum of:
    0.031063346 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031063346 = score(doc=3640,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.15490976 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051211275 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 3640, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3640)
    0.012202702 = product of:
      0.024405405 = sum of:
        0.024405405 = weight(_text_:conference in 3640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024405405 = score(doc=3640,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19418365 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051211275 = queryNorm
            0.12568209 = fieldWeight in 3640, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7918143 = idf(docFreq=2710, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3640)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    This classic paper presents the reasoning behind the research undertaken by the Classification Research Group in London, beginning in 1952 and producing, by 1955, the direction in which the Group's efforts were to go in the next thirty years. The Group's original purpose was to review the basic principles of indexing and classification without committing itself to any existing system. It began by uncovering - among existing systems such as indexes, classifications, automatic selectors, and other information retrieval systems - the steps in the process by means of which a search was performed. The Group went over this very carefully, identifying parts of the process each step of the way. At the time this work was performed systems such as UNITERMS, which did not survive, and other alphabetical coordinated indexes, mainly experimental, were a dime a dozen. Classification to most librarians meant Dewey and the Library of Congress systems, both of which have very serious shortcomings from an intellectual point of view. The Group finally came to the conclusion that a classification of knowledge was necessary for constructing any successful retrieval system. The question then became one of deciding which kind of classification system. The members identified ten unsatisfactory features of existing systems. In fact, they could not find any general class schedule that either was satisfactory or could be made satisfactory. Obviously then, a new system had to be made. The question became one of how to do this. Existing theories did not conform to the theory of logical division; dividing and subdividing an the basis of a single characteristic was not followed. Thus logical division, which is a "top down" method of analysis, was rejected. Generic relationships would have to be made by some other methodology. A "bottom-up" or inductive, as opposed to deductive, method was a possibility. The Group actually decided to use a system in which a given genus could be subdivided in more than one way, thus "yielding a homogeneous group of collateral species."
    Footnote
    Original in: Proceedings of the International Study Conference on Classification for Information Retrieval held at Beatrice Webb House, Dorking, England, 13th-17th May 1957. London: Aslib 1957, Appendix 2, S.137-147.

Authors

Years

Languages

Types

  • a 91
  • m 4
  • s 3
  • el 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications