Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.021961238 = product of:
  0.06588371 = sum of:
    0.041812565 = weight(_text_:web in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041812565 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = 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)
    0.024071148 = product of:
      0.048142295 = sum of:
        0.048142295 = weight(_text_:22 in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048142295 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1555381 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044416238 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

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

0.006159573 = product of:
  0.036957435 = sum of:
    0.036957435 = weight(_text_:web in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036957435 = score(doc=2874,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 2874, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2874)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.0052265706 = product of:
  0.031359423 = sum of:
    0.031359423 = weight(_text_:web in 715) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031359423 = score(doc=715,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 715, 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=715)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Claudio Gnoli of the University of Pavia in Italy and Chair of ISKO Italy, explored the relative merits of classic 'faceted classification' (FC) and 'freely faceted classification' (FFC). In classic FC, the facets (and their relationships) which might be combined to express a compound subject, are restricted to those prescribed as inherent in the subject area. FC is therefore largely bounded by and restricted to a specific subject area. At the other extreme, free classification (as in the Web or folksonomies) allows the combination of values from multiple, disparate domains where the relationships among the elements are often indeterminate, and the semantics obscure. Claudio described how punched cards were an early example of free classification, and cited the coordination of dogs : postmen : bites as one where the absence of defined relationships made the semantics ambiguous

0.0052265706 = product of:
  0.031359423 = sum of:
    0.031359423 = weight(_text_:web in 1806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031359423 = score(doc=1806,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 1806, 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=1806)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Facets and general categories used in bibliographic classification have been based on a disciplinary organization of knowledge. However, facets and categories of phenomena independent from disciplines can be identified similarly. Phenomena can be classified according to a series of integrative levels (layers), which in turn can be grouped into the major strata of form, matter, life, mind, society and culture, agreeing with Nicolai Hartmann's ontology. Unlike a layer, a stratum is not constituted of elements of the lower ones; rather, it represents the formal pattern of the lower ones, like the horse hoof represents the shape of the steppe. Bibliographic categories can now be seen in the light of level theory: some categories are truly general, while others only appear at a given level, being the realization of a general category in the specific context of the level: these are the facets of that level. In the notation of the Integrative Level Classification project, categories and facets are represented by digits, and displayed in a Web interface with the help of colours.

0.004729926 = product of:
  0.028379556 = sum of:
    0.028379556 = weight(_text_:computer in 3262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028379556 = score(doc=3262,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.16231956 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.17483756 = fieldWeight in 3262, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.6545093 = idf(docFreq=3109, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3262)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Footnote

Rez. in: KO 36(2009) no.1, S.62-63 (K. La Barre): "This special issue of Axiomathes presents an ambitious dual agenda. It attempts to highlight aspects of facet analysis (as used in LIS) that are shared by cognate approaches in philosophy, psychology, linguistics and computer science. Secondarily, the issue aims to attract others to the study and use of facet analysis. The authors represent a blend of lifetime involvement with facet analysis, such as Vickery, Broughton, Beghtol, and Dahlberg; those with well developed research agendas such as Tudhope, and Priss; and relative newcomers such as Gnoli, Cheti and Paradisi, and Slavic. Omissions are inescapable, but a more balanced issue would have resulted from inclusion of at least one researcher from the Indian school of facet theory. Another valuable addition might have been a reaction to the issue by one of the chief critics of facet analysis. Potentially useful, but absent, is a comprehensive bibliography of resources for those wishing to engage in further study, that now lie scattered throughout the issue. Several of the papers assume relative familiarity with facet analytical concepts and definitions, some of which are contested even within LIS. Gnoli's introduction (p. 127-130) traces the trajectory, extensions and new developments of this analytico- synthetic approach to subject access, while providing a laundry list of cognate approaches that are similar to facet analysis. This brief essay and the article by Priss (p. 243-255) directly addresses this first part of Gnoli's agenda. Priss provides detailed discussion of facet-like structures in computer science (p. 245- 246), and outlines the similarity between Formal Concept Analysis and facets. This comparison is equally fruitful for researchers in computer science and library and information science. By bridging into a discussion of visualization challenges for facet display, further research is also invited. Many of the remaining papers comprehensively detail the intellectual heritage of facet analysis (Beghtol; Broughton, p. 195-198; Dahlberg; Tudhope and Binding, p. 213-215; Vickery). Beghtol's (p. 131-144) examination of the origins of facet theory through the lens of the textbooks written by Ranganathan's mentor W.C.B. Sayers (1881-1960), Manual of Classification (1926, 1944, 1955) and a textbook written by Mills A Modern Outline of Classification (1964), serves to reveal the deep intellectual heritage of the changes in classification theory over time, as well as Ranganathan's own influence on and debt to Sayers.

0.004355476 = product of:
  0.026132854 = sum of:
    0.026132854 = weight(_text_:web in 2291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026132854 = score(doc=2291,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14495286 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.044416238 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 2291, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2291)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Disciplines are felt by many to be a constraint in classification, though they are a structuring principle of most bibliographic classification schemes. A non-disciplinary approach has been explored by the Classification Research Group, and research in this direction has been resumed recently by the Integrative Level Classification project. This paper focuses on the role and the definition of facets in non-disciplinary schemes. A generalized definition of facets is suggested with reference to predicate logic, allowing for having facets of phenomena as well as facets of disciplines. The general categories under which facets are often subsumed can be related ontologically to the evolutionary sequence of integrative levels. As a facet can be semantically connected with phenomena from any other part of a general scheme, its values can belong to three types, here called extra-defined foci (either special or general), and context-defined foci. Non-disciplinary freely faceted classification is being tested by applying it to little bibliographic samples stored in a MySQL database, and developing Web search interfaces to demonstrate possible uses of the described techniques.