Search (48 results, page 1 of 3)

0.06473547 = product of:
  0.0971032 = sum of:
    0.06606405 = weight(_text_:wide in 726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06606405 = score(doc=726,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22492146 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050763648 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 726, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=726)
    0.031039147 = product of:
      0.062078293 = sum of:
        0.062078293 = weight(_text_:web in 726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.062078293 = score(doc=726,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1656677 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050763648 = queryNorm
            0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 726, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=726)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This article gives a cheerfully brief and undetailed account of how to make a faceted classification system, then describes information retrieval and searching on the web. It concludes by saying that facets would be excellent in helping users search and browse the web, but offers no real clues as to how this can be done.

0.055989675 = product of:
  0.08398451 = sum of:
    0.06606405 = weight(_text_:wide in 44) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06606405 = score(doc=44,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22492146 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050763648 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 44, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=44)
    0.017920459 = product of:
      0.035840917 = sum of:
        0.035840917 = weight(_text_:web in 44) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035840917 = score(doc=44,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1656677 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050763648 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 44, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=44)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

0.0355951 = product of:
  0.05339265 = sum of:
    0.027526692 = weight(_text_:wide in 2467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027526692 = score(doc=2467,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22492146 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050763648 = queryNorm
        0.122383565 = fieldWeight in 2467, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2467)
    0.025865955 = product of:
      0.05173191 = sum of:
        0.05173191 = weight(_text_:web in 2467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05173191 = score(doc=2467,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.1656677 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050763648 = queryNorm
            0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 2467, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2467)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This is a classified, annotated bibliography about how to design faceted classification systems and make them usable on the World Wide Web. It is the first of three works I will be doing. The second, based on the material here and elsewhere, will discuss how to actually make the faceted system and put it online. The third will be a report of how I did just that, what worked, what didn't, and what I learned. Almost every article or book listed here begins with an explanation of what a faceted classification system is, so I won't (but see Steckel in Background below if you don't already know). They all agree that faceted systems are very appropriate for the web. Even pre-web articles (such as Duncan's in Background, below) assert that hypertext and facets will go together well. Combined, it is possible to take a set of documents and classify them or apply subject headings to describe what they are about, then build a navigational structure so that any user, no matter how he or she approaches the material, no matter what his or her goals, can move and search in a way that makes sense to them, but still get to the same useful results as someone else following a different path to the same goal. There is no one way that everyone will always use when looking for information. The more flexible the organization of the information, the more accommodating it is. Facets are more flexible for hypertext browsing than any enumerative or hierarchical system.
Consider movie listings in newspapers. Most Canadian newspapers list movie showtimes in two large blocks, for the two major theatre chains. The listings are ordered by region (in large cities), then theatre, then movie, and finally by showtime. Anyone wondering where and when a particular movie is playing must scan the complete listings. Determining what movies are playing in the next half hour is very difficult. When movie listings went onto the web, most sites used a simple faceted organization, always with movie name and theatre, and perhaps with region or neighbourhood (thankfully, theatre chains were left out). They make it easy to pick a theatre and see what movies are playing there, or to pick a movie and see what theatres are showing it. To complete the system, the sites should allow users to browse by neighbourhood and showtime, and to order the results in any way they desired. Thus could people easily find answers to such questions as, "Where is the new James Bond movie playing?" "What's showing at the Roxy tonight?" "I'm going to be out in in Little Finland this afternoon with three hours to kill starting at 2 ... is anything interesting playing?" A hypertext, faceted classification system makes more useful information more easily available to the user. Reading the books and articles below in chronological order will show a certain progression: suggestions that faceting and hypertext might work well, confidence that facets would work well if only someone would make such a system, and finally the beginning of serious work on actually designing, building, and testing faceted web sites. There is a solid basis of how to make faceted classifications (see Vickery in Recommended), but their application online is just starting. Work on XFML (see Van Dijck's work in Recommended) the Exchangeable Faceted Metadata Language, will make this easier. If it follows previous patterns, parts of the Internet community will embrace the idea and make open source software available for others to reuse. It will be particularly beneficial if professionals in both information studies and computer science can work together to build working systems, standards, and code. Each can benefit from the other's expertise in what can be a very complicated and technical area. One particularly nice thing about this area of research is that people interested in combining facets and the web often have web sites where they post their writings.
This bibliography is not meant to be exhaustive, but unfortunately it is not as complete as I wanted. Some books and articles are not be included, but they may be used in my future work. (These include two books and one article by B.C. Vickery: Faceted Classification Schemes (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers, 1966), Classification and Indexing in Science, 3rd ed. (London: Butterworths, 1975), and "Knowledge Representation: A Brief Review" (Journal of Documentation 42 no. 3 (September 1986): 145-159; and A.C. Foskett's "The Future of Faceted Classification" in The Future of Classification, edited by Rita Marcella and Arthur Maltby (Aldershot, England: Gower, 2000): 69-80). Nevertheless, I hope this bibliography will be useful for those both new to or familiar with faceted hypertext systems. Some very basic resources are listed, as well as some very advanced ones. Some example web sites are mentioned, but there is no detailed technical discussion of any software. The user interface to any web site is extremely important, and this is briefly mentioned in two or three places (for example the discussion of lawforwa.org (see Example Web Sites)). The larger question of how to display information graphically and with hypertext is outside the scope of this bibliography. There are five sections: Recommended, Background, Not Relevant, Example Web Sites, and Mailing Lists. Background material is either introductory, advanced, or of peripheral interest, and can be read after the Recommended resources if the reader wants to know more. The Not Relevant category contains articles that may appear in bibliographies but are not relevant for my purposes.

0.03427003 = product of:
  0.102810085 = sum of:
    0.102810085 = sum of:
      0.04778789 = weight(_text_:web in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04778789 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1656677 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050763648 = queryNorm
          0.2884563 = fieldWeight in 5083, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5083)
      0.05502219 = weight(_text_:22 in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05502219 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17776565 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050763648 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5083, 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=5083)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The concept of faceted classification has its long history and importance in the human civilization. Recently, more and more consumer Web sites adopt the idea of facet analysis to organize and display their products or services. The aim of this article is to review the origin and develpment of faceted classification, as well as its concepts, essence, advantage and limitation. Further, the applications of faceted classification in various domians have been explored.

Date

27. 5.2007 22:19:35

0.029986273 = product of:
  0.08995882 = sum of:
    0.08995882 = sum of:
      0.041814405 = weight(_text_:web in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041814405 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1656677 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050763648 = queryNorm
          0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
      0.048144415 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048144415 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17776565 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050763648 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3494, 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=3494)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Pages

S.22-36

Source

Theorie, Semantik und Organisation von Wissen: Proceedings der 13. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und dem 13. Internationalen Symposium der Informationswissenschaft der Higher Education Association for Information Science (HI) Potsdam (19.-20.03.2013): 'Theory, Information and Organization of Knowledge' / Proceedings der 14. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und Natural Language & Information Systems (NLDB) Passau (16.06.2015): 'Lexical Resources for Knowledge Organization' / Proceedings des Workshops der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) auf der SEMANTICS Leipzig (1.09.2014): 'Knowledge Organization and Semantic Web' / Proceedings des Workshops der Polnischen und Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) Cottbus (29.-30.09.2011): 'Economics of Knowledge Production and Organization'. Hrsg. von W. Babik, H.P. Ohly u. K. Weber

0.025702521 = product of:
  0.07710756 = sum of:
    0.07710756 = sum of:
      0.035840917 = weight(_text_:web in 2464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035840917 = score(doc=2464,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1656677 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050763648 = queryNorm
          0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2464, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2464)
      0.041266643 = weight(_text_:22 in 2464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041266643 = score(doc=2464,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17776565 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050763648 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2464, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2464)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A fascinating, broad-ranging article about classification, knowledge, and how they relate. Hierarchies, trees, paradigms (a two-dimensional classification that can look something like a spreadsheet), and facets are covered, with descriptions of how they work and how they can be used for knowledge discovery and creation. Kwasnick outlines how to make a faceted classification: choose facets, develop facets, analyze entities using the facets, and make a citation order. Facets are useful for many reasons: they do not require complete knowledge of the entire body of material; they are hospitable, flexible, and expressive; they do not require a rigid background theory; they can mix theoretical structures and models; and they allow users to view things from many perspectives. Facets do have faults: it can be hard to pick the right ones; it is hard to show relations between them; and it is difficult to visualize them. The coverage of the other methods is equally thorough and there is much to consider for anyone putting a classification on the web.

Source

Library trends. 48(1999) no.1, S.22-47

0.02569158 = product of:
  0.07707474 = sum of:
    0.07707474 = weight(_text_:wide in 169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07707474 = score(doc=169,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22492146 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050763648 = queryNorm
        0.342674 = fieldWeight in 169, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=169)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

While taxonomies are being increasingly discussed in published and grey literature, the term taxonomy still seems to be stated quite loosely and obscurely. This paper aims at explaining and clarifying the concept of taxonomy in the context of information organization. To this end, the salient features of taxonomies are identified and their scope, nature, and role are further elaborated based on an extensive literature review. In the meantime, the connection and distinctions between taxonomies and classification schemes and thesauri are also identified, and the rationale that taxonomies are chosen as a viable knowledge organization system used in organization-wide websites to support browsing and aid navigation is clarified.

0.018663226 = product of:
  0.027994838 = sum of:
    0.022021351 = weight(_text_:wide in 2824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022021351 = score(doc=2824,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22492146 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050763648 = queryNorm
        0.09790685 = fieldWeight in 2824, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2824)
    0.005973486 = product of:
      0.011946972 = sum of:
        0.011946972 = weight(_text_:web in 2824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011946972 = score(doc=2824,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1656677 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050763648 = queryNorm
            0.07211407 = fieldWeight in 2824, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2824)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Footnote

Essential Classification is also an exercise book. Indeed, it contains a number of practical exercises and activities in every chapter, along with suggested answers. Unfortunately, the answers are too often provided without the justifications and explanations that students would no doubt demand. The author has taken great care to explain all technical terms in her text, but formal definitions are also gathered in an extensive 172-term Glossary; appropriately, these terms appear in bold type the first time they are used in the text. A short, very short, annotated bibliography of standard classification textbooks and of manuals for the use of major classification schemes is provided. A detailed 11-page index completes the set of learning aids which will be useful to an audience of students in their effort to grasp the basic concepts of the theory and the practice of document classification in a traditional environment. Essential Classification is a fine textbook. However, this reviewer deplores the fact that it presents only a very "traditional" view of classification, without much reference to newer environments such as the Internet where classification also manifests itself in various forms. In Essential Classification, books are always used as examples, and we have to take the author's word that traditional classification practices and tools can also be applied to other types of documents and elsewhere than in the traditional library. Vanda Broughton writes, for example, that "Subject headings can't be used for physical arrangement" (p. 101), but this is not entirely true. Subject headings can be used for physical arrangement of vertical files, for example, with each folder bearing a simple or complex heading which is then used for internal organization. And if it is true that subject headings cannot be reproduced an the spine of [physical] books (p. 93), the situation is certainly different an the World Wide Web where subject headings as metadata can be most useful in ordering a collection of hot links. The emphasis is also an the traditional paperbased, rather than an the electronic version of classification schemes, with excellent justifications of course. The reality is, however, that supporting organizations (LC, OCLC, etc.) are now providing great quality services online, and that updates are now available only in an electronic format and not anymore on paper. E-based versions of classification schemes could be safely ignored in a theoretical text, but they have to be described and explained in a textbook published in 2005. One last comment: Professor Broughton tends to use the same term, "classification" to represent the process (as in classification is grouping) and the tool (as in constructing a classification, using a classification, etc.). Even in the Glossary where classification is first well-defined as a process, and classification scheme as "a set of classes ...", the definition of classification scheme continues: "the classification consists of a vocabulary (...) and syntax..." (p. 296-297). Such an ambiguous use of the term classification seems unfortunate and unnecessarily confusing in an otherwise very good basic textbook an categorization of concepts and subjects, document organization and subject representation."

0.015929297 = product of:
  0.04778789 = sum of:
    0.04778789 = product of:
      0.09557578 = sum of:
        0.09557578 = weight(_text_:web in 3075) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09557578 = score(doc=3075,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.1656677 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050763648 = queryNorm
            0.5769126 = fieldWeight in 3075, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3075)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper discusses the challenges faced by investigations into the classification of the Web and outlines inquiries that are needed to use principles for bibliographic classification to construct classifications of the Web. This paper suggests that the classification of the Web meets challenges that call for inquiries into the theoretical foundation of bibliographic classification theory.

0.014680902 = product of:
  0.044042703 = sum of:
    0.044042703 = weight(_text_:wide in 2761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044042703 = score(doc=2761,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22492146 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050763648 = queryNorm
        0.1958137 = fieldWeight in 2761, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2761)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper describes the cultural construction of classification as exemplified by the French Encyclopòudists, Jean d'Alembert and Denis Diderot, and the encyclopaedism of Samuel Taylor Coleridge analysing original texts digitized and encoded using XML and an adaptation of TEI. 1. Introduction This paper, focusing an encyclopaedism, is part of a larger study exploring the cultural construction of classification. The larger study explores possible foundations for bias in the structure of classifications with a view to more equitable practice. Bias in classification has been documented relative to race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality and other factors. Analyses and proposed solutions have addressed only acute biases in particular systems, not the systems themselves. The project tentatively identifies the systemic roots of bias are culturally specific and reflected in the structure of conventional classifcatory practices. A wide range of western cultural texts from classic Greek philosophy to twentieth-century ethnography is being analysed. The consistency with which certain presumptions are revealed, no matter how different the philosophical and social views of the authors, indicates their ubiquity in western thought, though it is not mirrored in many other cultures. We hope that an understanding of these fundamental cultural presumptions will make space for development of alternative approaches to knowledge organization that can work alongside conventional methods. This paper describes an example of the first phase of the project, which is a deconstruction developed from relevant texts. In the context of encyclopaedism the key texts used in this paper are Jean d'Alembert's Preliminary Discourse to the Encyclopedie, selections from Denis Diderot's contributions to the Encyclopedie, and Samuel Taylor Coleridge's Treatise an Method and Prospectus of the Encyclopedia Metropolitana. We are analysing these texts in digital form using Extensible Markup Language (XML) implemented via a document type definition (DTD) created for the purpose including elements of the Text Encoding Initiative (TEI). We will first explain the encoding methodology; then define the differences between the French Encyclopaedists and the English Coleridge; deconstruct these differences by allowing the commonalities between the texts to emerge; and, finally, examine their cultural specificity.

0.0139381355 = product of:
  0.041814405 = sum of:
    0.041814405 = product of:
      0.08362881 = sum of:
        0.08362881 = weight(_text_:web in 4172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08362881 = score(doc=4172,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.1656677 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050763648 = queryNorm
            0.50479853 = fieldWeight in 4172, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4172)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to find a relationship between traditional faceted classification schemes and semantic web document annotators, particularly in the linked data environment. Design/methodology/approach - A consideration of the conceptual ideas behind faceted classification and linked data architecture is made. Analysis of selected web documents is performed using Calais' Semantic Proxy to support the considerations. Findings - Technical language aside, the principles of both approaches are very similar. Modern classification techniques have the potential to automatically generate metadata to drive more precise information recall by including a semantic layer. Originality/value - Linked data have not been explicitly considered in this context before in the published literature.

Theme

Semantic Web

0.013755548 = product of:
  0.041266643 = sum of:
    0.041266643 = product of:
      0.082533285 = sum of:
        0.082533285 = weight(_text_:22 in 6404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.082533285 = score(doc=6404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17776565 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050763648 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6404, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6404)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.013755548 = product of:
  0.041266643 = sum of:
    0.041266643 = product of:
      0.082533285 = sum of:
        0.082533285 = weight(_text_:22 in 3773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.082533285 = score(doc=3773,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17776565 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050763648 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3773, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3773)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.013755548 = product of:
  0.041266643 = sum of:
    0.041266643 = product of:
      0.082533285 = sum of:
        0.082533285 = weight(_text_:22 in 3176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.082533285 = score(doc=3176,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17776565 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050763648 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3176, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3176)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

6. 5.2017 18:46:22

0.012070779 = product of:
  0.036212336 = sum of:
    0.036212336 = product of:
      0.07242467 = sum of:
        0.07242467 = weight(_text_:web in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07242467 = score(doc=166,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1656677 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050763648 = queryNorm
            0.43716836 = fieldWeight in 166, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=166)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The recent experiences in the building, maintenance and reuse of ontologies has shown that the most efficient approach is the collaborative one. However, communication between collaborators such as IT professionals, librarians, web designers and subject matter experts is difficult and time consuming. This is because there are different reasoning strategies, different logics and different kinds of knowledge representation in the applications of Semantic Web. This article intends to be a reference scheme. It uses concise and simple explanations that can be used in common by specialists of different backgrounds working together in an application of Semantic Web.

0.011263715 = product of:
  0.033791143 = sum of:
    0.033791143 = product of:
      0.06758229 = sum of:
        0.06758229 = weight(_text_:web in 3130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06758229 = score(doc=3130,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1656677 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050763648 = queryNorm
            0.4079388 = fieldWeight in 3130, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3130)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Based on the research on three general classification schemes, this paper discusses issues encountered when expressing classification schemes in SKOS and explores opportunities of resolving major issues using OWL 2 Web Ontology Language.

0.011010676 = product of:
  0.033032026 = sum of:
    0.033032026 = weight(_text_:wide in 3651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033032026 = score(doc=3651,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22492146 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050763648 = queryNorm
        0.14686027 = fieldWeight in 3651, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3651)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper, presented at the Ottawa Conference an the Conceptual Basis of the Classification of Knowledge, in 1971, is one of Fairthorne's more perceptive works and deserves a wide audience, especially as it breaks new ground in classification theory. In discussing the notion of discourse, he makes a "distinction between what discourse mentions and what discourse is about" [emphasis added], considered as a "fundamental factor to the relativistic nature of bibliographic classification" (p. 360). A table of mathematical functions, for example, describes exactly something represented by a collection of digits, but, without a preface, this table does not fit into a broader context. Some indication of the author's intent ls needed to fit the table into a broader context. This intent may appear in a title, chapter heading, class number or some other aid. Discourse an and discourse about something "cannot be determined solely from what it mentions" (p. 361). Some kind of background is needed. Fairthorne further develops the theme that knowledge about a subject comes from previous knowledge, thus adding a temporal factor to classification. "Some extra textual criteria are needed" in order to classify (p. 362). For example, "documents that mention the same things, but are an different topics, will have different ancestors, in the sense of preceding documents to which they are linked by various bibliographic characteristics ... [and] ... they will have different descendants" (p. 363). The classifier has to distinguish between documents that "mention exactly the same thing" but are not about the same thing. The classifier does this by classifying "sets of documents that form their histories, their bibliographic world lines" (p. 363). The practice of citation is one method of performing the linking and presents a "fan" of documents connected by a chain of citations to past work. The fan is seen as the effect of generations of documents - each generation connected to the previous one, and all ancestral to the present document. Thus, there are levels in temporal structure-that is, antecedent and successor documents-and these require that documents be identified in relation to other documents. This gives a set of documents an "irrevocable order," a loose order which Fairthorne calls "bibliographic time," and which is "generated by the fact of continual growth" (p. 364). He does not consider "bibliographic time" to be an equivalent to physical time because bibliographic events, as part of communication, require delay. Sets of documents, as indicated above, rather than single works, are used in classification. While an event, a person, a unique feature of the environment, may create a class of one-such as the French Revolution, Napoleon, Niagara Falls-revolutions, emperors, and waterfalls are sets which, as sets, will subsume individuals and make normal classes.

0.010346383 = product of:
  0.031039147 = sum of:
    0.031039147 = product of:
      0.062078293 = sum of:
        0.062078293 = weight(_text_:web in 4690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.062078293 = score(doc=4690,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1656677 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050763648 = queryNorm
            0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 4690, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4690)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Classification schemes, such as the DMoZ web directory, provide a convenient and intuitive way for humans to access classified contents. While being easy to be dealt with for humans, classification schemes remain hard to be reasoned about by automated software agents. Among other things, this hardness is conditioned by the ambiguous na- ture of the natural language used to describe classification categories. In this paper we describe how classification schemes can be converted into OWL ontologies, thus enabling reasoning on them by Semantic Web applications. The proposed solution is based on a two phase approach in which category names are first encoded in a concept language and then, together with the structure of the classification scheme, are converted into an OWL ontology. We demonstrate the practical applicability of our approach by showing how the results of reasoning on these OWL ontologies can help improve the organization and use of web directories.

0.0091703655 = product of:
  0.027511096 = sum of:
    0.027511096 = product of:
      0.05502219 = sum of:
        0.05502219 = weight(_text_:22 in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05502219 = score(doc=7242,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17776565 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050763648 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7242, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7242)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 4.1997 21:10:19

0.0091703655 = product of:
  0.027511096 = sum of:
    0.027511096 = product of:
      0.05502219 = sum of:
        0.05502219 = weight(_text_:22 in 1171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05502219 = score(doc=1171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17776565 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050763648 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1171, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1171)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

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