Search (119 results, page 2 of 6)

0.008572424 = product of:
  0.034289695 = sum of:
    0.034289695 = product of:
      0.05143454 = sum of:
        0.022378203 = weight(_text_:systems in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022378203 = score(doc=5562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 5562, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5562)
        0.029056335 = weight(_text_:22 in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029056335 = score(doc=5562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5562, 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=5562)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

For my segment of this program I'd like to focus on some basic qualities of classification schemes. These qualities are critical to our ability to truly organize knowledge for access. As I see it, there are at least five qualities of note. The first one of these properties that I want to talk about is "authoritative." By this I mean standardized, but I mean more than standardized with a built in consensus-building process. A classification scheme constructed by a collaborative, consensus-building process carries the approval, and the authority, of the discipline groups that contribute to it and that it affects... The next property of classification systems is "expandable," living, responsive, with a clear locus of responsibility for its continuous upkeep. The worst thing you can do with a thesaurus, or a classification scheme, is to finish it. You can't ever finish it because it reflects ongoing intellectual activity... The third property is "intuitive." That is, the system has to be approachable, it has to be transparent, or at least capable of being transparent. It has to have an underlying logic that supports the classification scheme but doesn't dominate it... The fourth property is "organized and logical." I advocate very strongly, and agree with Lois Chan, that classification must be based on a rule-based structure, on somebody's world-view of the syndetic structure... The fifth property is "universal" by which I mean the classification scheme needs be useable by any specific system or application, and be available as a language for multiple purposes.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 21(1995) no.2, S.19-22

0.008572424 = product of:
  0.034289695 = sum of:
    0.034289695 = product of:
      0.05143454 = sum of:
        0.022378203 = weight(_text_:systems in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022378203 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 1418, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1418)
        0.029056335 = weight(_text_:22 in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029056335 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.008572424 = product of:
  0.034289695 = sum of:
    0.034289695 = product of:
      0.05143454 = sum of:
        0.022378203 = weight(_text_:systems in 1778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022378203 = score(doc=1778,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 1778, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1778)
        0.029056335 = weight(_text_:22 in 1778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029056335 = score(doc=1778,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1778, 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=1778)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to introduce a new similarity method to gauge the differences between two subject hierarchical structures. Design/methodology/approach - In the proposed similarity measure, nodes on two hierarchical structures are projected onto a two-dimensional space, respectively, and both structural similarity and subject similarity of nodes are considered in the similarity between the two hierarchical structures. The extent to which the structural similarity impacts on the similarity can be controlled by adjusting a parameter. An experiment was conducted to evaluate soundness of the measure. Eight experts whose research interests were information retrieval and information organization participated in the study. Results from the new measure were compared with results from the experts. Findings - The evaluation shows strong correlations between the results from the new method and the results from the experts. It suggests that the similarity method achieved satisfactory results. Practical implications - Hierarchical structures that are found in subject directories, taxonomies, classification systems, and other classificatory structures play an extremely important role in information organization and information representation. Measuring the similarity between two subject hierarchical structures allows an accurate overarching understanding of the degree to which the two hierarchical structures are similar. Originality/value - Both structural similarity and subject similarity of nodes were considered in the proposed similarity method, and the extent to which the structural similarity impacts on the similarity can be adjusted. In addition, a new evaluation method for a hierarchical structure similarity was presented.

Date

8. 4.2015 16:22:13

0.0068931053 = product of:
  0.027572421 = sum of:
    0.027572421 = product of:
      0.04135863 = sum of:
        0.01790256 = weight(_text_:systems in 2639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01790256 = score(doc=2639,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.1358164 = fieldWeight in 2639, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2639)
        0.02345607 = weight(_text_:29 in 2639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02345607 = score(doc=2639,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15088047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 2639, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2639)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The results of a small qualitative study of gay and lesbian information users suggest that facet analysis as it is increasingly practised in the field of information architecture provides a promising avenue for improving information access to gay and lesbian information resources. Findings indicated that gay and lesbian information users have an acute sense of categorization grounded in the need to identify gay-positive physical and social spaces, and in their finely-honed practices of detecting gay "facets" to general information themes. They are also, however, very flexible and adaptable in their application of gay-related facet values, which suggests that browsing systems will have to be designed with considerable care.

Date

29. 8.2004 10:25:18

0.006857938 = product of:
  0.027431753 = sum of:
    0.027431753 = product of:
      0.041147627 = sum of:
        0.01790256 = weight(_text_:systems in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01790256 = score(doc=2346,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.1358164 = fieldWeight in 2346, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2346)
        0.023245066 = weight(_text_:22 in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023245066 = score(doc=2346,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2346, 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=2346)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - Potential and benefits of classification schemes and thesauri in building organizational taxonomies cannot be fully utilized by organizations. Empirical data of building an organizational taxonomy by the top-down approach of using classification schemes and thesauri appear to be lacking. The paper seeks to make a contribution in this regard. Design/methodology/approach - A case study of building an organizational taxonomy was conducted in the information studies domain for the Division of Information Studies at Nanyang Technology University, Singapore. The taxonomy was built by using the Dewey Decimal Classification, the Information Science Taxonomy, two information systems taxonomies, and three thesauri (ASIS&T, LISA, and ERIC). Findings - Classification schemes and thesauri were found to be helpful in creating the structure and categories related to the subject facet of the taxonomy, but organizational community sources had to be consulted and several methods had to be employed. The organizational activities and stakeholders' needs had to be identified to determine the objectives, facets, and the subject coverage of the taxonomy. Main categories were determined by identifying the stakeholders' interests and consulting organizational community sources and domain taxonomies. Category terms were selected from terminologies of classification schemes, domain taxonomies, and thesauri against the stakeholders' interests. Hierarchical structures of the main categories were constructed in line with the stakeholders' perspectives and the navigational role taking advantage of structures/term relationships from classification schemes and thesauri. Categories were determined in line with the concepts and the hierarchical levels. Format of categories were uniformed according to a commonly used standard. The consistency principle was employed to make the taxonomy structure and categories neater. Validation of the draft taxonomy through consultations with the stakeholders further refined the taxonomy. Originality/value - No similar study could be traced in the literature. The steps and methods used in the taxonomy development, and the information studies taxonomy itself, will be helpful for library and information schools and other similar organizations in their effort to develop taxonomies for organizing content and aiding navigation on organizational sites.

Date

7.11.2008 15:22:04

0.006841354 = product of:
  0.027365416 = sum of:
    0.027365416 = product of:
      0.08209625 = sum of:
        0.08209625 = weight(_text_:29 in 3162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08209625 = score(doc=3162,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15088047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.5441145 = fieldWeight in 3162, 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=3162)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

27. 1.2002 19:30:29

0.0063295113 = product of:
  0.025318045 = sum of:
    0.025318045 = product of:
      0.07595413 = sum of:
        0.07595413 = weight(_text_:systems in 34) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07595413 = score(doc=34,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.57622015 = fieldWeight in 34, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=34)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Universal classification I: subject analysis and ordering systems. Proc. of the 4th Int. Study Conf. on Classification research, Augsburg, 28.6.-2.7.1982. Ed.: I. Dahlberg

0.0059207156 = product of:
  0.023682863 = sum of:
    0.023682863 = product of:
      0.07104859 = sum of:
        0.07104859 = weight(_text_:systems in 1806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07104859 = score(doc=1806,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.5390046 = fieldWeight in 1806, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1806)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

2 concepts of facets have been used in studies of classification systems: one for systems which take hierarchical structure and the other for systems which take multidimensional structure. Both correspond to 'principles of division'. The concepts of facets in multidimensional structure systems is used for addressing a subject from many aspects so should equate to the broadest principle of division in order to grasp a multiplicity of aspects. The concept of facets used in hierarchical systems addresses only the significance of a coherent set of items. This concept is not distinguished from the principle of division and there is no purpose in introducing a concept of facets into hierarchical systems in addition to the principle of division

0.0058379043 = product of:
  0.023351617 = sum of:
    0.023351617 = product of:
      0.07005485 = sum of:
        0.07005485 = weight(_text_:systems in 3617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07005485 = score(doc=3617,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.5314657 = fieldWeight in 3617, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3617)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In view of the impact of systems theory for the construction of classification systems the two major contributions of Dewey are summarized as well as the new methods of facet analysis and organization brought into classification by Ranganathan. With the latter's "canonical" solution for the contents and arrangement of main classes, however, contemporary philosophical thought regarding the organization of knowledge seems to have been neglected. The work of the Classification Research Group and elsewhere considering integrative level theory will improve the science of classification systems construction. Besides this the influence from psychology and linguistics on the recognition of relationships between concepts is outlined as well as some practical implications of the systems approach on classification. (I.C.)

0.0058112666 = product of:
  0.023245066 = sum of:
    0.023245066 = product of:
      0.0697352 = sum of:
        0.0697352 = weight(_text_:22 in 6404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0697352 = score(doc=6404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6404, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6404)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.0058112666 = product of:
  0.023245066 = sum of:
    0.023245066 = product of:
      0.0697352 = sum of:
        0.0697352 = weight(_text_:22 in 3773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0697352 = score(doc=3773,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3773, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3773)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.0055945506 = product of:
  0.022378203 = sum of:
    0.022378203 = product of:
      0.067134604 = sum of:
        0.067134604 = weight(_text_:systems in 1099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.067134604 = score(doc=1099,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.5093115 = fieldWeight in 1099, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1099)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Hierarchies abound to help us organize our world. A hierarchy places items into a general order, where more 'general' is also more 'abstract'. The etymology of hierarchy is grounded in notions of religious and social rank. This article, after a historical review, focuses on knowledge systems, an interloper of the term hierarchy since at least the 1800s. Hierarchies in knowledge systems include taxonomies, classification systems, or thesauri in information science, and systems for representing information and knowledge to computers, notably ontologies and knowledge representation languages. Hierarchies are the logical underpinning of inference and reasoning in these systems, as well as the scaffolding for classification and inheritance. Hierarchies in knowledge systems express subsumption relations that have flexible variants, which we can represent algorithmically, and thus computationally. This article dissects that variability, leading to a proposed typology of hierarchies useful to knowledge systems. The article argues through a perspective informed by Charles Peirce that natural hierarchies are real, can be logically determined, and are the appropriate basis for knowledge systems. Description logics and semantic language standards reflect this perspective, importantly through their open-world logic and vocabularies for generalized subsumption hierarchies. Recent research suggests possible mechanisms for the emergence of natural hierarchies.

0.005274593 = product of:
  0.021098372 = sum of:
    0.021098372 = product of:
      0.06329511 = sum of:
        0.06329511 = weight(_text_:systems in 50) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06329511 = score(doc=50,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.48018348 = fieldWeight in 50, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=50)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Universal classification II: subject analysis and ordering systems. Proc. of the 4th Int. Study Conf. on Classification research, Augsburg, 28.6.-2.7.1982. Ed.: I. Dahlberg

0.0052215806 = product of:
  0.020886322 = sum of:
    0.020886322 = product of:
      0.062658966 = sum of:
        0.062658966 = weight(_text_:systems in 6583) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.062658966 = score(doc=6583,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.47535738 = fieldWeight in 6583, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6583)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Considers classification systems from a structural point of view. Distinguishes between 2 kinds of methods of categorization of classification systems: the first categorized by structure, either hierarchical or multidimensional; and the second by style of expression, either enumerative or sythetic. Identifies 4 leading classification systems according to their structures: DDC, LCC, UDC and Colon Classification. Focuses on DDC referring to 2 interpretatives of its structure, one of which is hierarchical and the other is partially multidimensional. Also relates this to the matter of interpretation of the notation '0', interpreted in one instance as 'generalities', and in another as 'coordination sign'

0.0052215806 = product of:
  0.020886322 = sum of:
    0.020886322 = product of:
      0.062658966 = sum of:
        0.062658966 = weight(_text_:systems in 931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.062658966 = score(doc=931,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.47535738 = fieldWeight in 931, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=931)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

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

Content

Contents: Preface. 1. Classification systems. 2. Automatic classification. 3. Knowledge classification. 4. Reflections on library classification. 5. General classification schemes. 6. Hierarchical classification. 7. Faceted classification. B. Present methods and future directions. Index.

0.0051680245 = product of:
  0.020672098 = sum of:
    0.020672098 = product of:
      0.062016293 = sum of:
        0.062016293 = weight(_text_:systems in 6993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.062016293 = score(doc=6993,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.4704818 = fieldWeight in 6993, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6993)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Describes the basic ideas concerning system science and discusses S.R. Ranganathan's ideas about concepts of 'universe of ideas', 'universe of science', 'universe of knowledge' and 'universe of classification'. Examines the principles, canons and postulates underlying Colon Classification. Discusses the structure of Colon Classification. Points out that the ideas of Ranganathan conform to the concept 'unity of science' and concludes that the principles of systems science or systems thinking are helpful in understanding the theory of classification formulated by Ranganathan

0.005003918 = product of:
  0.020015672 = sum of:
    0.020015672 = product of:
      0.060047016 = sum of:
        0.060047016 = weight(_text_:systems in 1138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060047016 = score(doc=1138,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.45554203 = fieldWeight in 1138, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1138)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In a changing information environment, we need to reassess each element of bibliographic control, including classification theories and systems. Every classification system is a theoretical construct imposed an "reality." The classificatory relationships that are assumed to be valuable have generally received less attention than the topics included in the systems. Relationships are functions of both the syntactic and semantic axes of classification systems, and both explicit and implicit relationships are discussed. Examples are drawn from a number of different systems, both bibliographic and non-bibliographic, and the cultural warrant (i. e., the sociocultural context) of classification systems is examined. The part-whole relationship is discussed as an example of a universally valid concept that is treated as a component of the cultural warrant of a classification system.

0.0045679314 = product of:
  0.018271726 = sum of:
    0.018271726 = product of:
      0.054815173 = sum of:
        0.054815173 = weight(_text_:systems in 3487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054815173 = score(doc=3487,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.41585106 = fieldWeight in 3487, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3487)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.0045220214 = product of:
  0.018088086 = sum of:
    0.018088086 = product of:
      0.054264255 = sum of:
        0.054264255 = weight(_text_:systems in 5145) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054264255 = score(doc=5145,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.41167158 = fieldWeight in 5145, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5145)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

C-KAT is a method and a tool which supports the design of feature oriented classification systems for knowlegde based systems. It uses a specialized Heuristic Classification conceptual model named 'classification by structural shift' which sees the classification process as the matching of different classifications of the same set of objects or situations organized around different structural principles. To manage the complexity induced by the cross-product, C-KAT supports the use of a leastcommittment strategy which applies in a context of constraint-directed reasoning. Presents this method using an example from the field of industrial fire insurance

0.0044756406 = product of:
  0.017902562 = sum of:
    0.017902562 = product of:
      0.053707685 = sum of:
        0.053707685 = weight(_text_:systems in 6580) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053707685 = score(doc=6580,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.4074492 = fieldWeight in 6580, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6580)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Universal classification I: subject analysis and ordering systems. Proc. of the 4th Int. Study Conf. on Classification research, Augsburg, 28.6.-2.7.1982. Ed.: I. Dahlberg