Search (112 results, page 1 of 6)

0.07748794 = product of:
  0.12914656 = sum of:
    0.060152818 = weight(_text_:wide in 726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060152818 = score(doc=726,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20479609 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = 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)
    0.056523696 = weight(_text_:web in 726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056523696 = score(doc=726,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1508442 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = 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)
    0.012470056 = product of:
      0.024940113 = sum of:
        0.024940113 = weight(_text_:research in 726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024940113 = score(doc=726,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = queryNorm
            0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 726, 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=726)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

This paper documents the continuing relevance of facet analysis as a technique for searching and organising WWW based materials. The 2 approaches underlying WWW searching and indexing - word and concept based indexing - are outlined. It is argued that facet analysis as an a posteriori approach to classification using words from the subject field as the concept terms in the classification derived represents an excellent approach to searching and organising the results of WWW searches using either search engines or search directories. Finally it is argued that the underlying philosophy of facet analysis is better suited to the disparate nature of WWW resources and searchers than the assumptions of contemporaray IR research.
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.

0.046417568 = product of:
  0.07736261 = sum of:
    0.025063675 = weight(_text_:wide in 2467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025063675 = score(doc=2467,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20479609 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = 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)
    0.047103077 = weight(_text_:web in 2467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047103077 = score(doc=2467,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.1508442 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = 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)
    0.005195857 = product of:
      0.010391714 = sum of:
        0.010391714 = weight(_text_:research in 2467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010391714 = score(doc=2467,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = queryNorm
            0.078803286 = fieldWeight in 2467, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2467)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

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.

0.037114717 = product of:
  0.09278679 = sum of:
    0.060152818 = weight(_text_:wide in 44) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060152818 = score(doc=44,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20479609 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = 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)
    0.032633968 = weight(_text_:web in 44) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032633968 = score(doc=44,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1508442 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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

0.03126478 = product of:
  0.07816194 = sum of:
    0.061535202 = weight(_text_:web in 3130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061535202 = score(doc=3130,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1508442 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = 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)
    0.016626742 = product of:
      0.033253483 = sum of:
        0.033253483 = weight(_text_:research in 3130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033253483 = score(doc=3130,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = queryNorm
            0.2521705 = fieldWeight in 3130, 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=3130)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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.

0.027424574 = product of:
  0.068561435 = sum of:
    0.04351196 = weight(_text_:web in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04351196 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1508442 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = 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)
    0.025049476 = product of:
      0.050098952 = sum of:
        0.050098952 = weight(_text_:22 in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050098952 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16185966 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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

0.026109839 = product of:
  0.065274596 = sum of:
    0.04864785 = weight(_text_:web in 311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04864785 = score(doc=311,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1508442 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = queryNorm
        0.32250395 = fieldWeight in 311, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=311)
    0.016626742 = product of:
      0.033253483 = sum of:
        0.033253483 = weight(_text_:research in 311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033253483 = score(doc=311,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = queryNorm
            0.2521705 = fieldWeight in 311, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=311)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This paper looks at Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) to investigate how a faceted classification can be expressed in RDF and shared on the Semantic Web. Statement of the Problem Faceted classification outlines facets as well as subfacets and facet values. Hierarchical relationships and associative relationships are established in a faceted classification. RDF is used to describe how a specific URI has a relationship to a facet value. Not only does RDF decompose "information into pieces," but by incorporating facet values RDF also given the URI the hierarchical and associative relationships expressed in the faceted classification. Combining faceted classification and RDF creates more knowledge than if the two stood alone. An application understands the subjectpredicate-object relationship in RDF and can display hierarchical and associative relationships based on the object (facet) value. This paper continues to investigate if the above idea is indeed useful, used, and applicable. If so, how can a faceted classification be expressed in RDF? What would this expression look like? Literature Review This paper used the same articles as the paper A Survey of Faceted Classification: History, Uses, Drawbacks and the Semantic Web (Putkey, 2010). In that paper, appropriate resources were discovered by searching in various databases for "faceted classification" and "faceted search," either in the descriptor or title fields. Citations were also followed to find more articles as well as searching the Internet for the same terms. To retrieve the documents about RDF, searches combined "faceted classification" and "RDF, " looking for these words in either the descriptor or title.
Methodology Based on information from research papers, more research was done on SKOS and examples of SKOS and shared faceted classifications in the Semantic Web and about SKOS and how to express SKOS in RDF/XML. Once confident with these ideas, the author used a faceted taxonomy created in a Vocabulary Design class and encoded it using SKOS. Instead of writing RDF in a program such as Notepad, a thesaurus tool was used to create the taxonomy according to SKOS standards and then export the thesaurus in RDF/XML format. These processes and tools are then analyzed. Results The initial statement of the problem was simply an extension of the survey paper done earlier in this class. To continue on with the research, more research was done into SKOS - a standard for expressing thesauri, taxonomies and faceted classifications so they can be shared on the semantic web.

0.023996502 = product of:
  0.059991255 = sum of:
    0.038072966 = weight(_text_:web in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038072966 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1508442 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = 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)
    0.021918291 = product of:
      0.043836582 = sum of:
        0.043836582 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043836582 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16185966 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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

0.021262242 = 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.

0.02056843 = product of:
  0.051421076 = sum of:
    0.032633968 = weight(_text_:web in 2464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032633968 = score(doc=2464,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1508442 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = 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)
    0.018787106 = product of:
      0.037574213 = sum of:
        0.037574213 = weight(_text_:22 in 2464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037574213 = score(doc=2464,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16185966 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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

0.017404785 = product of:
  0.08702392 = sum of:
    0.08702392 = weight(_text_:web in 3075) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08702392 = score(doc=3075,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1508442 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.01675643 = product of:
  0.041891076 = sum of:
    0.027194975 = weight(_text_:web in 2291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027194975 = score(doc=2291,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1508442 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = 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)
    0.014696103 = product of:
      0.029392205 = sum of:
        0.029392205 = weight(_text_:research in 2291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029392205 = score(doc=2291,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = queryNorm
            0.22288933 = fieldWeight in 2291, 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=2291)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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.

0.01675643 = product of:
  0.041891076 = sum of:
    0.027194975 = weight(_text_:web in 5800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027194975 = score(doc=5800,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1508442 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 5800, 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=5800)
    0.014696103 = product of:
      0.029392205 = sum of:
        0.029392205 = weight(_text_:research in 5800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029392205 = score(doc=5800,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046221454 = queryNorm
            0.22288933 = fieldWeight in 5800, 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=5800)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Shiyali Ramamrita Ranganathan's theory of classification spans a number of works over a number of decades. And while he was devoted to solving many problems in the practice of librarianship, and is known as the father of library science in India (Garfield, 1984), his work in classification revolves around one central concern. His classification research addressed the problems that arose from introducing new ideas into a scheme for classification, while maintaining a meaningful hierarchical and systematically arranged order of classes. This is because hierarchical and systematically arranged classes are the defining characteristic of useful classification. To lose this order is to through the addition of new classes is to introduce confusion, if not chaos, and to move toward a useless classification - or at least one that requires complete revision. In the following chapter, I outline the stages, and the elements of those stages, in Ranganathan's thought on classification from 1926-1972, as well as posthumous work that continues his agenda. And while facets figure prominently in all of these stages; but for Ranganathan to achieve his goal, he must continually add to this central feature of his theory of classification. I will close this chapter with an outline of persistent problems that represent research fronts for the field. Chief among these are what to do about scheme change and the open question about the rigor of information modeling in light of semantic web developments.

0.015229187 = product of:
  0.07614593 = sum of:
    0.07614593 = weight(_text_:web in 4172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07614593 = score(doc=4172,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1508442 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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

0.014586675 = product of:
  0.072933376 = sum of:
    0.072933376 = sum of:
      0.029096797 = weight(_text_:research in 7241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029096797 = score(doc=7241,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046221454 = queryNorm
          0.22064918 = fieldWeight in 7241, 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=7241)
      0.043836582 = weight(_text_:22 in 7241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043836582 = score(doc=7241,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16185966 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046221454 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 7241, 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=7241)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Footnote

Paper presented at conference on 'Local documents, a new classification scheme' at the Research Caucus of the Florida Library Association Annual Conference, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 22 Apr 95

0.014568972 = product of:
  0.07284486 = sum of:
    0.07284486 = sum of:
      0.035270646 = weight(_text_:research in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035270646 = score(doc=1428,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046221454 = queryNorm
          0.2674672 = fieldWeight in 1428, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1428)
      0.037574213 = weight(_text_:22 in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037574213 = score(doc=1428,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16185966 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046221454 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1428, 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=1428)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The paper discusses the challenges of faceted vocabulary organization in universal classifications which treat the universe of knowledge as a coherent whole and in which the concepts and subjects in different disciplines are shared, related and combined. The authors illustrate the challenges of the facet analytical approach using, as an example, the revision of class 72 in UDC. The paper reports on the research undertaken in 2013 as preparation for the revision. This consisted of analysis of concept organization in the UDC schedules in comparison with the Art & Architecture Thesaurus and class W of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification. The paper illustrates how such research can contribute to a better understanding of the field and may lead to improvements in the facet structure of this segment of the UDC vocabulary.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.014035659 = product of:
  0.07017829 = sum of:
    0.07017829 = weight(_text_:wide in 169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07017829 = score(doc=169,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20479609 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.013188863 = product of:
  0.065944314 = sum of:
    0.065944314 = weight(_text_:web in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.065944314 = score(doc=166,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1508442 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.012371573 = 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."

0.011304739 = product of:
  0.056523696 = sum of:
    0.056523696 = weight(_text_:web in 4690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056523696 = score(doc=4690,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1508442 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046221454 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.010769567 = product of:
  0.05384784 = sum of:
    0.05384784 = sum of:
      0.028798362 = weight(_text_:research in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028798362 = score(doc=2763,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.13186905 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046221454 = queryNorm
          0.21838607 = fieldWeight in 2763, 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=2763)
      0.025049476 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.025049476 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16185966 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046221454 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The different points of views an knowledge representation and organization from various research communities reflect underlying philosophies and paradigms in these communities. This paper reviews differences and relations in knowledge representation and organization and generalizes four paradigms-integrative and disintegrative pragmatism and integrative and disintegrative epistemologism. Examples such as classification, XML schemas, and ontologies are compared based an how they specify concepts, build data models, and encode knowledge organization structures. 1. Introduction Knowledge representation (KR) is a term that several research communities use to refer to somewhat different aspects of the same research area. The artificial intelligence (AI) community considers KR as simply "something to do with writing down, in some language or communications medium, descriptions or pictures that correspond in some salient way to the world or a state of the world" (Duce & Ringland, 1988, p. 3). It emphasizes the ways in which knowledge can be encoded in a computer program (Bench-Capon, 1990). For the library and information science (LIS) community, KR is literally the synonym of knowledge organization, i.e., KR is referred to as the process of organizing knowledge into classifications, thesauri, or subject heading lists. KR has another meaning in LIS: it "encompasses every type and method of indexing, abstracting, cataloguing, classification, records management, bibliography and the creation of textual or bibliographic databases for information retrieval" (Anderson, 1996, p. 336). Adding the social dimension to knowledge organization, Hjoerland (1997) states that knowledge is a part of human activities and tied to the division of labor in society, which should be the primary organization of knowledge. Knowledge organization in LIS is secondary or derived, because knowledge is organized in learned institutions and publications. These different points of views an KR suggest that an essential difference in the understanding of KR between both AI and LIS lies in the source of representationwhether KR targets human activities or derivatives (knowledge produced) from human activities. This difference also decides their difference in purpose-in AI KR is mainly computer-application oriented or pragmatic and the result of representation is used to support decisions an human activities, while in LIS KR is conceptually oriented or abstract and the result of representation is used for access to derivatives from human activities.

Date

12. 9.2004 17:22:35