Search (24 results, page 1 of 2)

0.021180402 = product of:
  0.12708241 = sum of:
    0.12708241 = sum of:
      0.084384196 = weight(_text_:theory in 537) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.084384196 = score(doc=537,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16234003 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03903913 = queryNorm
          0.51979905 = fieldWeight in 537, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=537)
      0.04269821 = weight(_text_:29 in 537) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04269821 = score(doc=537,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13732746 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03903913 = queryNorm
          0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 537, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=537)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The presentation will examine the potential of facet analysis as a basis for determining status and relationships of concepts in subject based tools using a controlled vocabulary, and the extent to which it can be used as a general theory of knowledge organization as opposed to a methodology for structuring classifications only.

Date

26.12.2011 13:21:29

0.017006397 = product of:
  0.051019188 = sum of:
    0.02637006 = product of:
      0.05274012 = sum of:
        0.05274012 = weight(_text_:theory in 96) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05274012 = score(doc=96,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16234003 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.3248744 = fieldWeight in 96, 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=96)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.024649128 = product of:
      0.049298257 = sum of:
        0.049298257 = weight(_text_:methods in 96) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049298257 = score(doc=96,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.31409478 = fieldWeight in 96, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=96)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The paper looks at ways in which traditional classification and indexing tools have dealt with the relationships between constituent terms; variations in these are examined and compared with the methods used in machine searching, particularly of the Internet and World Wide Web. Apparent correspondences with features of index languages are identified, and further methods of applying classification and indexing theory to machine retrieval are proposed. There are various ways in which indexing and retrieval systems, both conventional and electronic, deal with the problem of searching for documents on a subject basis, and various approaches to the analysis and processing of a query. There appear to be three basic models; the taxonomic or structural system, in which the user is offered a map of the `universe of knowledge'; the language based system, which offers a vocabulary of the subject and a grammar for dealing with compound statements; and the mathematical model using the language of symbolic logic or the algebra of set theory

0.014872484 = product of:
  0.04461745 = sum of:
    0.026105028 = product of:
      0.052210055 = sum of:
        0.052210055 = weight(_text_:theory in 2550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052210055 = score(doc=2550,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16234003 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.32160926 = fieldWeight in 2550, 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=2550)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.018512422 = product of:
      0.037024844 = sum of:
        0.037024844 = weight(_text_:22 in 2550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037024844 = score(doc=2550,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1367084 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2550, 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=2550)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The paper takes a retrospective look at the work of Henry Evelyn Bliss, classificationist theorist and author of the Bibliographic Classification. Major features of his writings and philosophy are examined and evaluated for the originality of their contribution to the corpus of knowledge in the discipline. Reactions to Bliss's work are analysed, as is his influence on classification theory of the 20th century. Contemporary work on knowledge organization is seen to continue a number of strands from Bliss's original writings. His standing as a classificationist is compared with that of Ranganathan, with the conclusion that he is not given the credit he deserves.

Date

9. 2.1997 18:44:22

0.012795856 = product of:
  0.07677513 = sum of:
    0.07677513 = sum of:
      0.044751476 = weight(_text_:theory in 1857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044751476 = score(doc=1857,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16234003 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03903913 = queryNorm
          0.27566507 = fieldWeight in 1857, 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=1857)
      0.032023653 = weight(_text_:29 in 1857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.032023653 = score(doc=1857,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13732746 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03903913 = queryNorm
          0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 1857, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1857)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Facet analysis is an established methodology for building classifications and subject indexing systems, but has been less rigorously applied to thesauri. The process of creating a compatible thesaurus from the schedules of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification 2nd edition highlights the ways in which the conceptual relationships in a subject field are handled in the two types of retrieval languages. An underlying uniformity of theory is established, and the way in which software can manage the relationships is discussed. The manner of displaying verbal expressions of concepts (vocabulary control) is also considered, but is found to be less well controlled in the classification than in the thesaurus. Nevertheless, there is good reason to think that facet analysis provides a sound basis for structuring a variety of knowledge organization tools.

Date

31. 5.2008 19:11:29

0.012261091 = product of:
  0.07356654 = sum of:
    0.07356654 = sum of:
      0.041830957 = weight(_text_:methods in 6392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041830957 = score(doc=6392,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03903913 = queryNorm
          0.26651827 = fieldWeight in 6392, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6392)
      0.03173558 = weight(_text_:22 in 6392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03173558 = score(doc=6392,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1367084 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03903913 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 6392, 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=6392)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The ways in which notation can be used to express the content of documents to which it relates are various. At the most superficial level notation can correspond to the hierarchical structure of the schedules or link to literal components. The notation of compound concepts can express the structure and composition of the compound, and systems exist in which symbols denote the functional roles of the constituent elements and the relationships between them. At the highest level notation can be used to mirror the actual structure of those entities which it represents, as in the case of mathematical systems or chemical compounds. Methods of displaying these structures are examined, and the practicality in a documentary context is questioned, with particular reference to recent revision work on the chemistry class of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification 2nd edition (BC2)

Date

10. 8.2001 13:22:14

0.0120253395 = product of:
  0.036076017 = sum of:
    0.018646449 = product of:
      0.037292898 = sum of:
        0.037292898 = weight(_text_:theory in 3940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037292898 = score(doc=3940,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16234003 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.2297209 = fieldWeight in 3940, 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=3940)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.017429566 = product of:
      0.034859132 = sum of:
        0.034859132 = weight(_text_:methods in 3940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034859132 = score(doc=3940,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.22209854 = fieldWeight in 3940, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3940)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this editorial is to introduce the selected Proceedings of the 1st National Conference of ISKO UK, the UK Chapter of the International Society for Knowledge Organization. It aims to provide some background for the group, and place it within the context of the recent history of information organization and retrieval in subject domains. Design/methodology/approach - The paper introduces a selection of papers delivered at the 1st National Conference of the UK Chapter of the International Society for Knowledge Organization. Findings - The field of knowledge organization is lively and progressive, and researchers and practitioners in many sectors are actively engaged with it, despite its apparent decline in LIS education. New communities of interest may use different terms to describe this work, but there is much common ground, and a growing convergence of ideas and methods. Originality/value - The value of existing theory is now more widely recognised, and the importance of structured knowledge organization systems and vocabularies in retrieval is generally acknowledged. It is to be hoped that these important areas of information practice and research will soon be restored to their former place in professional education.

0.0120253395 = product of:
  0.036076017 = sum of:
    0.018646449 = product of:
      0.037292898 = sum of:
        0.037292898 = weight(_text_:theory in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037292898 = score(doc=2874,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16234003 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.2297209 = fieldWeight in 2874, 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=2874)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.017429566 = product of:
      0.034859132 = sum of:
        0.034859132 = weight(_text_:methods in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034859132 = score(doc=2874,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.22209854 = fieldWeight in 2874, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2874)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Purpose - The aim of this article is to estimate the impact of faceted classification and the faceted analytical method on the development of various information retrieval tools over the latter part of the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Design/methodology/approach - The article presents an examination of various subject access tools intended for retrieval of both print and digital materials to determine whether they exhibit features of faceted systems. Some attention is paid to use of the faceted approach as a means of structuring information on commercial web sites. The secondary and research literature is also surveyed for commentary on and evaluation of facet analysis as a basis for the building of vocabulary and conceptual tools. Findings - The study finds that faceted systems are now very common, with a major increase in their use over the last 15 years. Most LIS subject indexing tools (classifications, subject heading lists and thesauri) now demonstrate features of facet analysis to a greater or lesser degree. A faceted approach is frequently taken to the presentation of product information on commercial web sites, and there is an independent strand of theory and documentation related to this application. There is some significant research on semi-automatic indexing and retrieval (query expansion and query formulation) using facet analytical techniques. Originality/value - This article provides an overview of an important conceptual approach to information retrieval, and compares different understandings and applications of this methodology.

0.009620271 = product of:
  0.028860811 = sum of:
    0.014917159 = product of:
      0.029834319 = sum of:
        0.029834319 = weight(_text_:theory in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029834319 = score(doc=6089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16234003 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.18377672 = fieldWeight in 6089, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6089)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.013943653 = product of:
      0.027887305 = sum of:
        0.027887305 = weight(_text_:methods in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027887305 = score(doc=6089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.17767884 = fieldWeight in 6089, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6089)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

The genesis of the Group: In 1948, as part of the post-war renewal of library services in the United Kingdom, the Royal Society organized a Conference on Scientific Information.' What, at the time, must have seemed a minute part of the grand plan, but was later to have a transforming effect on the theory of knowledge organization throughout the remainder of the century, was the setting up of a standing committee of a small group of specialists to investigate the organization and retrieval of scientific information. In 1950, the secretary of that committee, J.D. Bernal, suggested that it might be appropriate to ask a group of librarians to do a study of the problem. After a couple of years of informal discussion it was agreed, in February 1952, to form a Classification Research Group - the CRG as it has become known to subsequent generations. The Group published a brief corporate statement of its views in the Library Association Record in June 1953 and submitted a memorandum to the Library Association Research Committee in May 1955, entitled "The need for a faceted classification as the basis of all methods of information retrieval". This memorandum was published in the proceedings of what has become known as the "Dorking Conference" in 1957. Of the original fifteen members, four still belong to the Group, three of whom are in regular attendance: Eric Coates, Douglas Foskett and Jack Mills. Brian Vickery ceased attending regularly in the 1960s but has retained his interest in their doings: he was present at the 150th celebratory meeting in 1984 and played an active part in the "Dorking revisited" conference held in 1997. The stated aim of the Group was 'To review the basic principles of bibliographic classification, unhampered by allegiance to any particular published scheme' and it can truly be stated that the work of its members has had a fundamental influence on the teaching and practice of information retrieval. It is paradoxical that this collection of people has exerted such a strong theoretical sway because their aims were from the outset and remain essentially practical. This fact is sometimes overlooked in the literature on knowledge organization: there is a tendency to get carried away, and for researchers of today to concentrate so hard on what might be that they overlook what is needed, useful and practical - the entire objective of any retrieval system.

0.009620271 = product of:
  0.028860811 = sum of:
    0.014917159 = product of:
      0.029834319 = sum of:
        0.029834319 = weight(_text_:theory in 2875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029834319 = score(doc=2875,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16234003 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.18377672 = fieldWeight in 2875, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2875)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.013943653 = product of:
      0.027887305 = sum of:
        0.027887305 = weight(_text_:methods in 2875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027887305 = score(doc=2875,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.17767884 = fieldWeight in 2875, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2875)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to provide an overview of principles and procedures involved in creating a faceted classification scheme for use in resource discovery in an online environment. Design/methodology/approach - Facet analysis provides an established rigorous methodology for the conceptual organization of a subject field, and the structuring of an associated classification or controlled vocabulary. This paper explains how that methodology was applied to the humanities in the FATKS project, where the objective was to explore the potential of facet analytical theory for creating a controlled vocabulary for the humanities, and to establish the requirements of a faceted classification appropriate to an online environment. A detailed faceted vocabulary was developed for two areas of the humanities within a broader facet framework for the whole of knowledge. Research issues included how to create a data model which made the faceted structure explicit and machine-readable and provided for its further development and use. Findings - In order to support easy facet combination in indexing, and facet searching and browsing on the interface, faceted classification requires a formalized data structure and an appropriate tool for its management. The conceptual framework of a faceted system proper can be applied satisfactorily to humanities, and fully integrated within a vocabulary management system. Research limitations/implications - The procedures described in this paper are concerned only with the structuring of the classification, and do not extend to indexing, retrieval and application issues. Practical implications - Many stakeholders in the domain of resource discovery consider developing their own classification system and supporting tools. The methods described in this paper may clarify the process of building a faceted classification and may provide some useful ideas with respect to the vocabulary maintenance tool. Originality/value - As far as the authors are aware there is no comparable research in this area.

0.008806056 = product of:
  0.052836336 = sum of:
    0.052836336 = product of:
      0.10567267 = sum of:
        0.10567267 = weight(_text_:29 in 3784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10567267 = score(doc=3784,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13732746 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.7694941 = fieldWeight in 3784, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3784)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

11. 8.2005 12:27:29

Source

Extensions and corrections to the UDC. 24(2002), S.29-35

0.0070320163 = product of:
  0.042192098 = sum of:
    0.042192098 = product of:
      0.084384196 = sum of:
        0.084384196 = weight(_text_:theory in 3755) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084384196 = score(doc=3755,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16234003 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.51979905 = fieldWeight in 3755, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3755)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This entry looks at the origins of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification 2nd edition and the theory on which it is built. The reasons for the decision to revise the classification are examined, as are the influences on classification theory of the mid-twentieth century. The process of revision and construction of schedules using facet analysis is described. The use of BC2 is considered along with some recent development work on thesaural and digital formats.

0.0069718263 = product of:
  0.041830957 = sum of:
    0.041830957 = product of:
      0.083661914 = sum of:
        0.083661914 = weight(_text_:methods in 6367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.083661914 = score(doc=6367,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.53303653 = fieldWeight in 6367, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6367)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

0.006226822 = product of:
  0.03736093 = sum of:
    0.03736093 = product of:
      0.07472186 = sum of:
        0.07472186 = weight(_text_:29 in 353) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07472186 = score(doc=353,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13732746 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.5441145 = fieldWeight in 353, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=353)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

International cataloguing and bibliographic control. 29(2000) no.4, S.59-61

0.0053372756 = product of:
  0.032023653 = sum of:
    0.032023653 = product of:
      0.06404731 = sum of:
        0.06404731 = weight(_text_:29 in 4607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06404731 = score(doc=4607,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13732746 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.46638384 = fieldWeight in 4607, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4607)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

29. 8.2004 9:14:57

0.0053372756 = product of:
  0.032023653 = sum of:
    0.032023653 = product of:
      0.06404731 = sum of:
        0.06404731 = weight(_text_:29 in 6410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06404731 = score(doc=6410,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13732746 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.46638384 = fieldWeight in 6410, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6410)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Extensions and corrections to the UDC. 20(1998), S.27-29

0.0052892636 = product of:
  0.03173558 = sum of:
    0.03173558 = product of:
      0.06347116 = sum of:
        0.06347116 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06347116 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1367084 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6048, 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=6048)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:41:14

0.0049723866 = product of:
  0.029834319 = sum of:
    0.029834319 = product of:
      0.059668638 = sum of:
        0.059668638 = weight(_text_:theory in 1788) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059668638 = score(doc=1788,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16234003 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.36755344 = fieldWeight in 1788, 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=1788)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The article reviews the life and work of Brian Campbell Vickery, one of the major figures of British classification and information retrieval, and a scholar of international reputation. His career as librarian, researcher, and academic is described, as is the part he played in the development of information science theory in the twentieth century. Some of his most significant publications are listed, with reference to the scale and breadth of his published work overall.

0.0037292899 = product of:
  0.022375738 = sum of:
    0.022375738 = product of:
      0.044751476 = sum of:
        0.044751476 = weight(_text_:theory in 5992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044751476 = score(doc=5992,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16234003 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.27566507 = fieldWeight in 5992, 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=5992)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The paper examines the development of facet analysis as a methodology and the role it plays in building classifications and other knowledge-organization tools. The use of categorical analysis in areas other than library and information science is also considered. The suitability of the faceted approach for humanities documentation is explored through a critical description of the FATKS (Facet Analytical Theory in Managing Knowledge Structure for Humanities) project carried out at University College London. This research focused on building a conceptual model for the subject of religion together with a relational database and search-and-browse interfaces that would support some degree of automatic classification. The paper concludes with a discussion of the differences between the conceptual model and the vocabulary used to populate it, and how, in the case of religion, the choice of terminology can create an apparent bias in the system.

0.0031077415 = product of:
  0.018646449 = sum of:
    0.018646449 = product of:
      0.037292898 = sum of:
        0.037292898 = weight(_text_:theory in 4826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037292898 = score(doc=4826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16234003 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.2297209 = fieldWeight in 4826, 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=4826)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Facet analysis is proposed as a general theory of knowledge organization, with an associated methodology that may be applied to the development of terminology tools in a variety of contexts and formats. Faceted classifications originated as a means of representing complexity in semantic content that facilitates logical organization and effective retrieval in a physical environment. This is achieved through meticulous analysis of concepts, their structural and functional status (based on fundamental categories), and their inter-relationships. These features provide an excellent basis for the general conceptual modelling of domains, and for the generation of KOS other than systematic classifications. This is demonstrated by the adoption of a faceted approach to many web search and visualization tools, and by the emergence of a facet based methodology for the construction of thesauri. Current work on the Bliss Bibliographic Classification (Second Edition) is investigating the ways in which the full complexity of faceted structures may be represented through encoded data, capable of generating intellectually and mechanically compatible forms of indexing tools from a single source. It is suggested that a number of research questions relating to the Semantic Web could be tackled through the medium of facet analysis.

0.0029049278 = product of:
  0.017429566 = sum of:
    0.017429566 = product of:
      0.034859132 = sum of:
        0.034859132 = weight(_text_:methods in 5728) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034859132 = score(doc=5728,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.22209854 = fieldWeight in 5728, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5728)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The paper traces the development of the discussion around ethical issues in artificial intelligence, and considers the way in which humans have affected the knowledge bases used in machine learning. The phenomenon of bias or discrimination in machine ethics is seen as inherited from humans, either through the use of biased data or through the semantics inherent in intellectually- built tools sourced by intelligent agents. The kind of biases observed in AI are compared with those identified in the field of knowledge organization, using religious adherents as an example of a community potentially marginalized by bias. A practical demonstration is given of apparent religious prejudice inherited from source material in a large database deployed widely in computational linguistics and automatic indexing. Methods to address the problem of bias are discussed, including the modelling of the moral process on neuroscientific understanding of brain function. The question is posed whether it is possible to model religious belief in a similar way, so that robots of the future may have both an ethical and a religious sense and themselves address the problem of prejudice.