Search (20 results, page 1 of 1)

0.04113686 = product of:
  0.10284215 = sum of:
    0.065267935 = weight(_text_:web in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.065267935 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1508442 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = queryNorm
        0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 6048, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6048)
    0.037574213 = product of:
      0.075148426 = sum of:
        0.075148426 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.075148426 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16185966 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:41:14

Theme

Semantic Web

0.03092893 = product of:
  0.07732233 = sum of:
    0.05012735 = weight(_text_:wide in 96) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05012735 = score(doc=96,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20479609 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = queryNorm
        0.24476713 = fieldWeight in 96, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=96)
    0.027194975 = weight(_text_:web in 96) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027194975 = score(doc=96,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1508442 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 96, 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=96)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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

0.021262242 = product of:
  0.053155605 = sum of:
    0.038459502 = weight(_text_:web in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038459502 = score(doc=2874,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1508442 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = 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)
    0.014696103 = product of:
      0.029392205 = sum of:
        0.029392205 = weight(_text_:research in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029392205 = score(doc=2874,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = queryNorm
            0.22288933 = fieldWeight in 2874, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2874)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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.

0.019540487 = product of:
  0.048851214 = sum of:
    0.038459502 = weight(_text_:web in 4826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038459502 = score(doc=4826,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1508442 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 4826, 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=4826)
    0.010391714 = product of:
      0.020783428 = sum of:
        0.020783428 = weight(_text_:research in 4826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020783428 = score(doc=4826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = queryNorm
            0.15760657 = fieldWeight in 4826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4826)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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.

0.012371573 = product of:
  0.030928932 = sum of:
    0.020050941 = weight(_text_:wide in 2824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020050941 = score(doc=2824,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20479609 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = 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)
    0.01087799 = weight(_text_:web in 2824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01087799 = score(doc=2824,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1508442 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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."

0.009230281 = product of:
  0.046151403 = sum of:
    0.046151403 = weight(_text_:web in 3532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046151403 = score(doc=3532,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1508442 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 3532, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3532)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The Bliss Bibliographic Classification is the only example of a fully faceted general classification scheme in the Western world. Although it is the object of much interest as a model for other tools it suffers from the lack of a web presence, and remedying this is an immediate objective for its editors. Understanding how this might be done presents some challenges, as the scheme is semantically very rich and complex in the range and nature of the relationships it contains. The automatic management of these is already in place using local software, but exporting this to a common data format needs careful thought and planning. Various encoding schemes, both for traditional classifications, and for digital materials, represent variously: the concepts; their functional roles; and the relationships between them. Integrating these aspects in a coherent and interchangeable manner appears to be achievable, but the most appropriate format is as yet unclear.

0.0076919007 = product of:
  0.038459502 = sum of:
    0.038459502 = weight(_text_:web in 2476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038459502 = score(doc=2476,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1508442 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 2476, 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=2476)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

A short discussion of using classification systems to organize the web, one of many such. The authors are both involved with BC2 and naturally think it is the best system for organizing information online. They list reasons why faceted classifications are best (e.g. no theoretical limits to specificity or exhaustivity; easier to handle complex subjects; flexible enough to accommodate different user needs) and take a brief look at how BC2 works. They conclude with a discussion of how and why it should be applied to online resources, and a plea for recognition of the importance of classification and subject analysis skills, even when full-text searching is available and databases respond instantly.

0.0060138702 = product of:
  0.015034676 = sum of:
    0.01087799 = weight(_text_:web in 2924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01087799 = score(doc=2924,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1508442 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = queryNorm
        0.07211407 = fieldWeight in 2924, 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=2924)
    0.0041566854 = product of:
      0.008313371 = sum of:
        0.008313371 = weight(_text_:research in 2924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008313371 = score(doc=2924,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = queryNorm
            0.063042626 = fieldWeight in 2924, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2924)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Footnote

Rez. in: Mitt. VÖB 60(2007) H.1, S.98-101 (O. Oberhauser): "Die Autorin von Essential thesaurus construction (and essential taxonomy construction, so der implizite Untertitel, vgl. S. 1) ist durch ihre Lehrtätigkeit an der bekannten School of Library, Archive and Information Studies des University College London und durch ihre bisherigen Publikationen auf den Gebieten (Facetten-)Klassifikation und Thesaurus fachlich einschlägig ausgewiesen. Nach Essential classification liegt nun ihr Thesaurus-Lehrbuch vor, mit rund 200 Seiten Text und knapp 100 Seiten Anhang ein handliches Werk, das seine Genese zum Grossteil dem Lehrbetrieb verdankt, wie auch dem kurzen Einleitungskapitel zu entnehmen ist. Das Buch ist der Schule von Jean Aitchison et al. verpflichtet und wendet sich an "the indexer" im weitesten Sinn, d.h. an alle Personen, die ein strukturiertes, kontrolliertes Fachvokabular für die Zwecke der sachlichen Erschliessung und Suche erstellen wollen bzw. müssen. Es möchte dieser Zielgruppe das nötige methodische Rüstzeug für eine solche Aufgabe vermitteln, was einschliesslich der Einleitung und der Schlussbemerkungen in zwanzig Kapiteln geschieht - eine ansprechende Strukturierung, die ein wohldosiertes Durcharbeiten möglich macht. Zu letzterem tragen auch die von der Autorin immer wieder gestellten Übungsaufgaben bei (Lösungen jeweils am Kapitelende). Zu Beginn der Darstellung wird der "information retrieval thesaurus" von dem (zumindest im angelsächsischen Raum) weit öfter mit dem Thesaurusbegriff assoziierten "reference thesaurus" abgegrenzt, einem nach begrifflicher Ähnlichkeit angeordneten Synonymenwörterbuch, das gerne als Mittel zur stilistischen Verbesserung beim Abfassen von (wissenschaftlichen) Arbeiten verwendet wird. Ohne noch ins Detail zu gehen, werden optische Erscheinungsform und Anwendungsgebiete von Thesauren vorgestellt, der Thesaurus als postkoordinierte Indexierungssprache erläutert und seine Nähe zu facettierten Klassifikationssystemen erwähnt. In der Folge stellt Broughton die systematisch organisierten Systeme (Klassifikation/ Taxonomie, Begriffs-/Themendiagramme, Ontologien) den alphabetisch angeordneten, wortbasierten (Schlagwortlisten, thesaurusartige Schlagwortsysteme und Thesauren im eigentlichen Sinn) gegenüber, was dem Leser weitere Einordnungshilfen schafft. Die Anwendungsmöglichkeiten von Thesauren als Mittel der Erschliessung (auch als Quelle für Metadatenangaben bei elektronischen bzw. Web-Dokumenten) und der Recherche (Suchformulierung, Anfrageerweiterung, Browsing und Navigieren) kommen ebenso zur Sprache wie die bei der Verwendung natürlichsprachiger Indexierungssysteme auftretenden Probleme. Mit Beispielen wird ausdrücklich auf die mehr oder weniger starke fachliche Spezialisierung der meisten dieser Vokabularien hingewiesen, wobei auch Informationsquellen über Thesauren (z.B. www.taxonomywarehouse.com) sowie Thesauren für nicht-textuelle Ressourcen kurz angerissen werden.
Diese Abschnitte sind verständlich geschrieben und trotz der mitunter gar nicht so einfachen Thematik auch für Einsteiger geeignet. Vorteilhaft ist sicherlich, dass die Autorin die Thesauruserstellung konsequent anhand eines einzelnen thematischen Beispiels demonstriert und dafür das Gebiet "animal welfare" gewählt hat, wohl nicht zuletzt auch deshalb, da die hier auftretenden Facetten und Beziehungen ohne allzu tiefgreifende fachwissenschaftliche Kenntnisse für die meisten Leser nachvollziehbar sind. Das methodische Gerüst der Facettenanalyse wird hier deutlich stärker betont als etwa in der (spärlichen) deutschsprachigen Thesaurusliteratur. Diese Vorgangsweise soll neben der Ordnungsbildung auch dazu verhelfen, die Zahl der Deskriptoren überschaubar zu halten und weniger auf komplexe (präkombinierte) Deskriptoren als auf postkoordinierte Indexierung zu setzen. Dafür wird im übrigen das als Verfeinerung der bekannten Ranganathanschen PMEST-Formel geltende Schema der 13 "fundamental categories" der UK Classification Research Group (CRG) vorgeschlagen bzw. in dem Beispiel verwendet (Thing / Kind / Part / Property; Material / Process / Operation; Patient / Product / By-product / Agent; Space; Time). Als "minor criticism" sei erwähnt, dass Broughton in ihrem Demonstrationsbeispiel als Notation für die erarbeitete Ordnung eine m.E. schwer lesbare Buchstabenfolge verwendet, obwohl sie zugesteht (S. 165), dass ein Zifferncode vielfach als einfacher handhabbar empfunden wird.

0.0049880226 = product of:
  0.024940113 = sum of:
    0.024940113 = product of:
      0.049880225 = sum of:
        0.049880225 = weight(_text_:research in 4607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049880225 = score(doc=4607,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = queryNorm
            0.37825575 = fieldWeight in 4607, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4607)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Information research watch international. 2002, June, S.2-4

0.0043836585 = product of:
  0.021918291 = sum of:
    0.021918291 = product of:
      0.043836582 = sum of:
        0.043836582 = weight(_text_:22 in 2550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043836582 = score(doc=2550,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16185966 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

9. 2.1997 18:44:22

0.0037574214 = product of:
  0.018787106 = sum of:
    0.018787106 = product of:
      0.037574213 = sum of:
        0.037574213 = weight(_text_:22 in 6392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037574213 = score(doc=6392,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16185966 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

10. 8.2001 13:22:14

0.0033253485 = product of:
  0.016626742 = sum of:
    0.016626742 = product of:
      0.033253483 = sum of:
        0.033253483 = weight(_text_:research in 537) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033253483 = score(doc=537,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = queryNorm
            0.2521705 = fieldWeight in 537, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=537)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

http://www.comp.glam.ac.uk/pages/research/hypermedia/nkos/nkos2007/programme.html

0.0029392205 = product of:
  0.014696103 = sum of:
    0.014696103 = product of:
      0.029392205 = sum of:
        0.029392205 = weight(_text_:research in 593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029392205 = score(doc=593,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = queryNorm
            0.22288933 = fieldWeight in 593, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=593)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to identify the most important factors and features in the evolution of thesauri and ontologies through a dialectic model. This model relies on a dialectic process or idea which could be discovered via a dialectic method. This method has focused on identifying the logical relationship between a beginning proposition, or an idea called a thesis, a negation of that idea called the antithesis, and the result of the conflict between the two ideas, called a synthesis. During the creation of knowl­edge organization systems (KOSs), the identification of logical relations between different ideas has been made possible through the consideration and use of the most influential methods and tools such as dictionaries, Roget's Thesaurus, thesaurus, micro-, macro- and metathesauri, ontology, lower, middle and upper level ontologies. The analysis process has adapted a historical methodology, more specifically a dialectic method and documentary method as the reasoning process. This supports our arguments and synthesizes a method for the analysis of research results. Confirmed by the research results, the principle of unity has shown to be the most important factor in the development and evolution of the structure of knowl­edge organization systems and their types. There are various types of unity when considering the analysis of logical relations. These include the principle of unity of alphabetical order, unity of science, semantic unity, structural unity and conceptual unity. The results have clearly demonstrated a movement from plurality to unity in the assembling of the complex structure of knowl­edge organization systems to increase information and knowl­edge storage and retrieval performance.

0.0029096797 = product of:
  0.014548399 = sum of:
    0.014548399 = product of:
      0.029096797 = sum of:
        0.029096797 = weight(_text_:research in 1164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029096797 = score(doc=1164,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = queryNorm
            0.22064918 = fieldWeight in 1164, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1164)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Facets are widely encountered in information and knowledge organization, but there is much disparity in the use and understanding of concepts such as "facet," "facet analysis," and "faceted classification." The paper traces the history of these ideas and how they have been employed in different contexts. What may be termed the classical school of faceted classification is given some prominence, through the ideas of Ranganathan and the Classification Research Group, but other interpretations are also explored. Attention is paid not only to the idea of what facet analysis is, and what purpose it serves, but also the language utilized to describe and explain it.

0.0028798364 = product of:
  0.014399181 = sum of:
    0.014399181 = product of:
      0.028798362 = sum of:
        0.028798362 = weight(_text_:research in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028798362 = score(doc=6089,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = queryNorm
            0.21838607 = fieldWeight in 6089, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6089)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.0028798364 = product of:
  0.014399181 = sum of:
    0.014399181 = product of:
      0.028798362 = sum of:
        0.028798362 = weight(_text_:research in 2875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028798362 = score(doc=2875,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = queryNorm
            0.21838607 = fieldWeight in 2875, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2875)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.0024940113 = product of:
  0.012470056 = sum of:
    0.012470056 = product of:
      0.024940113 = sum of:
        0.024940113 = weight(_text_:research in 5992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024940113 = score(doc=5992,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = queryNorm
            0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 5992, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5992)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.002078343 = product of:
  0.010391714 = sum of:
    0.010391714 = product of:
      0.020783428 = sum of:
        0.020783428 = weight(_text_:research in 5895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020783428 = score(doc=5895,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = queryNorm
            0.15760657 = fieldWeight in 5895, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5895)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Broughton is one of the key people working on the second edition of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification (BC2). Her article has a brief, informative history of facets, then discusses semantic vs. syntactic relationships, standard facets used by Ranganathan and the Classification Research Group, facet analysis and citation order, and how to build subject indexes out of faceted classifications, all with occasional reference to digital environments and hypertext, but never with any specifics. It concludes by saying of faceted classification that the "capacity which it has to create highly sophisticated structures for the accommodation of complex objects suggests that it is worth investigation as an organizational tool for digital materials, and that the results of such investigation would be knowledge structures of unparalleled utility and elegance." How to build them is left to the reader, but this article provides an excellent starting point. It includes an example that shows how general concepts can be applied to a small set of documents and subjects, and how terms can be adapted to suit the material and users

0.002078343 = product of:
  0.010391714 = sum of:
    0.010391714 = product of:
      0.020783428 = sum of:
        0.020783428 = weight(_text_:research in 3940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020783428 = score(doc=3940,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = queryNorm
            0.15760657 = fieldWeight in 3940, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3940)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.002078343 = product of:
  0.010391714 = sum of:
    0.010391714 = product of:
      0.020783428 = sum of:
        0.020783428 = weight(_text_:research in 4065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020783428 = score(doc=4065,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = queryNorm
            0.15760657 = fieldWeight in 4065, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4065)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Recent revision of UDC classes has aimed at implementing a more faceted approach. Many compound classes have been removed from the main tables, and more radical revisions of classes (particularly those for Medicine and Religion) have introduced a rigorous analysis, a clearer sense of citation order, and building of compound classes according to a more logical system syntax. The faceted approach provides a means of formalizing the relationships in the classification and making them explicit for machine recognition. In the Bliss Bibliographic Classification (BC2) (which has been a source for both UDC classes mentioned above), terminologies are encoded for automatic generation of hierarchical and associative relationships. Nevertheless, difficulties are encountered in vocabulary control, and a similar phenomenon is observed in UDC. Current work has revealed differences in the vocabulary of humanities and science, notably the way in which terms in the humanities should be handled when these are semantically complex. Achieving a balance between rigour in the structure of the classification and the complexity of natural language expression remains partially unresolved at present, but provides a fertile field for further research.