Search (17 results, page 1 of 1)

0.025353726 = product of:
  0.076061174 = sum of:
    0.076061174 = product of:
      0.114091754 = sum of:
        0.06675345 = weight(_text_:theory in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06675345 = score(doc=5830,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18161562 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04367448 = queryNorm
            0.36755344 = fieldWeight in 5830, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5830)
        0.04733831 = weight(_text_:22 in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04733831 = score(doc=5830,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15294059 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04367448 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5830, 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=5830)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

5. 8.2006 13:22:08

0.015846077 = product of:
  0.047538232 = sum of:
    0.047538232 = product of:
      0.071307346 = sum of:
        0.041720904 = weight(_text_:theory in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041720904 = score(doc=3483,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18161562 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04367448 = queryNorm
            0.2297209 = fieldWeight in 3483, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3483)
        0.029586446 = weight(_text_:22 in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029586446 = score(doc=3483,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15294059 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04367448 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.0148341 = product of:
  0.0445023 = sum of:
    0.0445023 = product of:
      0.1335069 = sum of:
        0.1335069 = weight(_text_:theory in 1346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1335069 = score(doc=1346,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18161562 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04367448 = queryNorm
            0.7351069 = fieldWeight in 1346, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1346)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.011125575 = product of:
  0.033376724 = sum of:
    0.033376724 = product of:
      0.10013017 = sum of:
        0.10013017 = weight(_text_:theory in 909) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10013017 = score(doc=909,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18161562 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04367448 = queryNorm
            0.55133015 = fieldWeight in 909, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=909)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.0092713125 = product of:
  0.027813938 = sum of:
    0.027813938 = product of:
      0.08344181 = sum of:
        0.08344181 = weight(_text_:theory in 2517) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08344181 = score(doc=2517,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.18161562 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04367448 = queryNorm
            0.4594418 = fieldWeight in 2517, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2517)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In the global learning society, we need to understand how knowledge is transferred within one field and among different fields. In addition, we need to know how to create an atmosphere of tolerance for different points of view. One way of achieving understanding between different cultures and from different vantage points within the same culture is to study the relationship(s) between theory and practice. For this purpose, it is useful to understand the relationship(s) among ideas, how initial ideas migrate into practice and back into theory, and how "best practices" are identified and become widespread. In this paper, knowledge organization systems are used as examples of how knowledge organization systems are created, how knowledge of the systems may be disseminated, and how that new knowledge is integrated into accepted theory and practice. This examination provides clues about the development of theories and practices that can enhance the contributions knowledge organization systems make to the global learning society.

0.00741705 = product of:
  0.02225115 = sum of:
    0.02225115 = product of:
      0.06675345 = sum of:
        0.06675345 = weight(_text_:theory in 4018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06675345 = score(doc=4018,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18161562 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04367448 = queryNorm
            0.36755344 = fieldWeight in 4018, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4018)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Proposes a new experimental methodology for evaluating the results of library research from the user's viewpoint. Illustrates the theory by comparing the efficacy of information retrieved from 2 document catalogues, identical except that one is alphabetical and the other numerical/verbal. The methodology utilises the concept of 3 dependent variables: 'promising references retrieved' by the researcher; 'documents read'; and 'documents cited'. Claims that the retrieval effectiveness of the techniques outlined compares favourably with that of W.S. Cooper's methodology

0.00741705 = product of:
  0.02225115 = sum of:
    0.02225115 = product of:
      0.06675345 = sum of:
        0.06675345 = weight(_text_:theory in 91) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06675345 = score(doc=91,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18161562 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04367448 = queryNorm
            0.36755344 = fieldWeight in 91, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=91)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Different types of subdivision may be used throughout the same classification system. This paper presents exploratory research into "wholes", "kinds" and "parts" as they relate to the theory and practice of bibliographic classification. Some problems of consistently identifying different kinds of subdivision and of the ambiguities of their relationships are discussed. Some implications of these issues for dynamism and stability in classification systems are addressed

0.006555808 = product of:
  0.019667422 = sum of:
    0.019667422 = product of:
      0.059002265 = sum of:
        0.059002265 = weight(_text_:theory in 1856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059002265 = score(doc=1856,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18161562 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04367448 = queryNorm
            0.3248744 = fieldWeight in 1856, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1856)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

During the twentieth century, bibliographic classification theory underwent a structural revolution. The first modern bibliographic classifications were top-down systems that started at the universe of knowledge and subdivided that universe downward to minute subclasses. After the invention of faceted classification by S.R. Ranganathan, the ideal was to build bottom-up classifications that started with the universe of concepts and built upward to larger and larger faceted classes. This ideal has not been achieved, and the two kinds of classification systems are not mutually exclusive. This paper examines the process by which this structural revolution was accomplished by looking at the spread of facet theory after 1924 when Ranganathan attended the School of Librarianship, London, through selected classification textbooks that were published after that date. To this end, the paper examines the role of W.C.B. Sayers as a teacher and author of three editions of The Manual of Classification for Librarians and Bibliographers. Sayers influenced both Ranganathan and the various members of the Classification Research Group (CRG) who were his students. Further, the paper contrasts the methods of evaluating classification systems that arose between Sayers's Canons of Classification in 1915- 1916 and J. Mills's A Modern Outline of Library Classification in 1960 in order to demonstrate the speed with which one kind of classificatory structure was overtaken by another.

0.006489919 = product of:
  0.019469757 = sum of:
    0.019469757 = product of:
      0.058409266 = sum of:
        0.058409266 = weight(_text_:theory in 666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058409266 = score(doc=666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18161562 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04367448 = queryNorm
            0.32160926 = fieldWeight in 666, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=666)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.006489919 = product of:
  0.019469757 = sum of:
    0.019469757 = product of:
      0.058409266 = sum of:
        0.058409266 = weight(_text_:theory in 3413) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058409266 = score(doc=3413,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18161562 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04367448 = queryNorm
            0.32160926 = fieldWeight in 3413, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3413)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The work is an adaptation of the author's dissertation and has the following chapters: (1) background and introduction; (2) a problem in classification theory; (3) previous fiction analysis theories and systems and 'The left hand of darkness'; (4) fiction warrant and critical warrant; (5) experimental fiction analysis system (EFAS); (6) application and evaluation of EFAS. Appendix 1 gives references to fiction analysis systems and appendix 2 lists EFAS coding sheets

0.0055627874 = product of:
  0.016688362 = sum of:
    0.016688362 = product of:
      0.050065085 = sum of:
        0.050065085 = weight(_text_:theory in 2217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050065085 = score(doc=2217,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18161562 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04367448 = queryNorm
            0.27566507 = fieldWeight in 2217, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2217)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Undiscovered public knowledge is a relatively unstudied phenomenon, and the few extended examples that have been published are intradisciplinary. This paper presents the concept of 'facet' as an example of interdisciplinary undiscovered public knowledge. 'Facets' were central to the bibliographic classification theory of S.R. Ranganathan in India and to the behavioural research of L. Guttman in Israel. The term had the same meaning in both fields, and the concept was developed and exploited at about the same time in both, but two separate, unconnected literatures grew up around the term and its associated concepts. This paper examines the origins and parallel uses of the concept and the term in both fields as a case study of interdisciplinary knowledge that could have been, but was apparantly not, doscovered any time between the aerly 1950s and the present using simple, readily available information retrieval techniques

0.0055627874 = product of:
  0.016688362 = sum of:
    0.016688362 = product of:
      0.050065085 = sum of:
        0.050065085 = weight(_text_:theory in 2028) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050065085 = score(doc=2028,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18161562 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04367448 = queryNorm
            0.27566507 = fieldWeight in 2028, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2028)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Bibliographic classification systems purport to organize the world of knowledge for information storage and retrieval purposes in libraries and bibliographies, both manual and online. The major systems that have predominated during the 20th century were originally predicated on the academic disciplines. This structural principle is no longer adequate because multidisciplinray knowledge production has overtaken more traditional disciplinary perspectives and produced communities of cooperation whose documents cannot be accomodated in a disciplinary structure. This paper addresses the problems the major classifications face, reports some attempts to revise these systems to accomodate multidisciplinary works more appropriately, and describes some theoretical research perspectives that attempt to reorient classification research toward the pluralistic needs of multidisciplinary knowledge creation and the perspectives of different discourse communities. Traditionally, the primary desiderata of classification systems were mutual exclusivity and joint exhaustivity. The need to respond to multidisciplinary research may mean that hospitality will replace mutual exclusivity and joint exhaustivity as the most needed and useful characteristics of classification systems in both theory and practice

0.0055627874 = product of:
  0.016688362 = sum of:
    0.016688362 = product of:
      0.050065085 = sum of:
        0.050065085 = weight(_text_:theory in 44) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050065085 = score(doc=44,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18161562 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04367448 = queryNorm
            0.27566507 = fieldWeight in 44, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=44)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In this century, knowledge creation, production, dissemination and use have changed profoundly. Intellectual and physical barriers have been substantially reduced by the rise of multidisciplinarity and by the influence of computerization, particularly by the spread of the World Wide Web (WWW). Bibliographic classification systems need to respond to this situation. Three possible strategic responses are described: 1) adopting an existing system; 2) adapting an existing system; and 3) finding new structural principles for classification systems. Examples of these three responses are given. An extended example of the third option uses the knowledge outline in the Spectrum of Britannica Online to suggest a theory of "viewpoint warrant" that could be used to incorporate differing perspectives into general classification systems

0.0055627874 = product of:
  0.016688362 = sum of:
    0.016688362 = product of:
      0.050065085 = sum of:
        0.050065085 = weight(_text_:theory in 869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050065085 = score(doc=869,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18161562 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04367448 = queryNorm
            0.27566507 = fieldWeight in 869, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=869)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

James Duff Brown was an influential and energetic librarian in Great Britain in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. His Subject Classification has characteristics that were unusual and idiosyncratic during his own time, but his work deserves recognition as one of the precursors of modern bibliographic classification systems. This article discusses a number of theories and classification practices that Brown developed. In particular, it investigates his views on the order of main classes, on the phenomenon of "concrete" subjects, and on the need for synthesized notations. It traces these ideas briefly into the future through the work of S. R. Ranganathan, the Classification Research Group, and the second edition of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification system. It concludes that Brown's work warrants further study for the light it may shed on current classification theory and practice.

0.0055627874 = product of:
  0.016688362 = sum of:
    0.016688362 = product of:
      0.050065085 = sum of:
        0.050065085 = weight(_text_:theory in 3761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050065085 = score(doc=3761,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18161562 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04367448 = queryNorm
            0.27566507 = fieldWeight in 3761, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3761)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.0046441127 = product of:
  0.013932338 = sum of:
    0.013932338 = product of:
      0.041797012 = sum of:
        0.041797012 = weight(_text_:29 in 1483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041797012 = score(doc=1483,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15363316 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04367448 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 1483, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1483)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

29. 2.2008 19:19:30

0.0046356563 = product of:
  0.013906969 = sum of:
    0.013906969 = product of:
      0.041720904 = sum of:
        0.041720904 = weight(_text_:theory in 3487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041720904 = score(doc=3487,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18161562 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04367448 = queryNorm
            0.2297209 = fieldWeight in 3487, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3487)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper argues that the semantic axis of bibliographic classification systems can be found in the various warrants that have been used to justify the utility of classification systems. Classificationists, theorists, and critics have emphasized the syntactic aspects of classification theories and systems, but a number of semantic warrants can be identified. The evolution of four semantic warrants is traced through the development of twentieth-century classification theory: literary warrant, scientific/philosophical warrant, educational warrant, and cultural warrant. It is concluded that further examination of semantic warrants might make possible a rationalized approach to the creation of classification systems for particular uses. The attention of scholars on faceted schemes and classificatory structures had heretofore pulled our attention to the syntactic aspects (e.g., concept division and citation order), with semantics being considered more or less a question of the terms and their relationships and somewhat taken for granted, or at least construed as a unitary aspect. Attention is on the choice of the classes and their meaning, as well as their connection to the world, and not so much on their syntactic relationship. This notion is developed by providing an historical and conceptual overview of the various kinds of warrant discernible in working with bibliographic systems. In Beghtol's definition, warrant concerns more than just the selection of terms, but rather the mapping of a classification system to the context and uses.