Search (12 results, page 1 of 1)

0.010929298 = product of:
  0.05464649 = sum of:
    0.05464649 = weight(_text_:it in 766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05464649 = score(doc=766,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.36153275 = fieldWeight in 766, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=766)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This paper looks at the epistemological foundations of knowledge representations embodied in retrieval languages. It considers questions such as the validity of knowledge representations and their effectiveness for the purposes of retrieval and automation. The knowledge representations it considers are derived from three theories of meaning that have dominated twentieth-century philosophy.

0.009660226 = product of:
  0.04830113 = sum of:
    0.04830113 = weight(_text_:it in 5187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04830113 = score(doc=5187,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.31955284 = fieldWeight in 5187, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=5187)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article provides an interpretation of the structure of classification theory literature, from the late 19th Century to the present, by dividing it into four orders, and then describes the relationship between that and manuals for classification design.

0.009563136 = product of:
  0.04781568 = sum of:
    0.04781568 = weight(_text_:it in 1890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04781568 = score(doc=1890,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.31634116 = fieldWeight in 1890, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1890)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Different types of eveidence used in answering the question: what is good indexing? are considered. The evidence is presented in the context of the method on inquiry which produced mysticism, rationalism or empiricism. The method of mysticism is illustrated with reference to Cutter and the problem of specific entry. Ranganathan's approach to the controversy over alphabetical vs. classified arrangement is used to illustrate the method of rationalism. Cleverdon's work is taken as an example of the method of empiricism. In providing evidence for good indexing, the method of empiricism is found wanting. It is suggested that the method be improved by fundamental research into problems of sampling and definition, and that it be supplementend by other methods of inquiry

0.009563136 = product of:
  0.04781568 = sum of:
    0.04781568 = weight(_text_:it in 5612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04781568 = score(doc=5612,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.31634116 = fieldWeight in 5612, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5612)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Recent papers have called attention to discrepancies in the assignment of LCSH. While philosophical arguments can be made that subject analysis, if not a logical impossibility, at least is point-of-view dependent, subject headings continue to be assigned and continue to be useful. The hypothesis advanced in the present project is that to a considerable degree there is a clear-cut right and wrong to LCSH subject heading assignment. To test the hypothesis, it was postulated that the assignment of a subject heading is correct if it is supported by textual warrant (at least 20% of the book being cataloged is on the topic) and is constructed in accordance with the LoC Subject Cataloging Manual: Subject Headings. A sample of 100 books on scientific subjects was used to test the hypothesis

0.008196974 = product of:
  0.04098487 = sum of:
    0.04098487 = weight(_text_:it in 5599) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04098487 = score(doc=5599,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.27114958 = fieldWeight in 5599, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5599)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This paper looks at changes affecting LCSH over its 100-year history. Adopting a linguistic conceptualization, it frames these changes as relating to the semantics, syntax and pragmatics of the LCSH language. While its category semantics has remained stable over time, the LCSH relational semantics underwent a significant upheaval when a thesaural structure was imposed upon its traditional See and See also structure. Over time the LCSH syntax has become increasingly complex as it has moved from being largely enumerative to in large part synthetic. Until fairly recently the LCSH pragmatics consisted of only one rule, viz, the injunction to assign specific headings. This rule, always controversial, has become even more debated and interpreted with the move to the online environment

0.008196974 = product of:
  0.04098487 = sum of:
    0.04098487 = weight(_text_:it in 5602) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04098487 = score(doc=5602,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.27114958 = fieldWeight in 5602, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5602)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This paper looks at changes affecting LCSH over its 100-year history. Adopting a linguistic conceptualization, it frames these changes as relating to the semantics, syntax and pragmatics of the LCSH language. While its category semantics has remained stable over time, the LCSH relational semantics underwent a significant upheaval when a thesaural structure was imposed upon its traditional See and See also structure. Over time the LCSH syntax has become increasingly complex as it has moved from being largely enumerative to in large part synthetic. Until fairly recently the LCSH pragmatics consisted of only one rule, viz, the injunction to assign specific headings. This rule, always controversial, has become even more debated and interpreted with the move to the online environment

0.0077281813 = product of:
  0.038640905 = sum of:
    0.038640905 = weight(_text_:it in 1155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038640905 = score(doc=1155,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.25564227 = fieldWeight in 1155, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1155)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

A model system, the Dewey Online Retrieval System (DORS), was implemented as an interface to an online catalog for the purpose of experimenting with classification-based search strategies and generally seeking further understanding of the role of traditional classifications in automated information retrieval. Specifications for a classification retrieval interface were enumerated and rationalized and the system was developed in accordance with them. The feature that particularly distinguishes the system and enables it to meet its stated specifications is an automatically generated chain index

0.0077281813 = product of:
  0.038640905 = sum of:
    0.038640905 = weight(_text_:it in 1891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038640905 = score(doc=1891,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.25564227 = fieldWeight in 1891, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1891)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This paper speculates on directions for research in the field of bibliographical control, where bibliographical control is taken to include indexing, classification, and cataloging. The approach taken is to consider questions in the field that need answering. The position taken is that while concerns of a how-to-do-it nature drive this field's research, which is of an evaluative or developmental nature, there is a strong need for this research to be backed by basic theoretical research

0.0077281813 = product of:
  0.038640905 = sum of:
    0.038640905 = weight(_text_:it in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038640905 = score(doc=2654,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.25564227 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article discusses some of Ranganathan's contributions to the productive, practical and theoretical aspects of classification science. These include: (1) a set of design criteria to guide the designing of schemes for knowledge / subject classification; (2) a conceptual framework for organizing the universe of subjects; and (3) an understanding of the general principles underlying subject disciplines and classificatory languages. It concludes that Ranganathan has contributed significantly to laying the foundations for a science of subject classification.

0.0077281813 = product of:
  0.038640905 = sum of:
    0.038640905 = weight(_text_:it in 8263) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038640905 = score(doc=8263,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.25564227 = fieldWeight in 8263, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=8263)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

An examination of some nonbook materials with respect to an aboutness model of indexing leads to the conclusion that there are instances that defy subject indexing. These occur not so much because of the nature of the medium per se but because it is being used for nondocumentary purposes, or, when being used for such purposes, the subject referenced is nonlexical

0.0077281813 = product of:
  0.038640905 = sum of:
    0.038640905 = weight(_text_:it in 5356) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038640905 = score(doc=5356,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.25564227 = fieldWeight in 5356, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5356)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In an interview with Dorothy McGarry, Elaine Svenonius discusses her many-faceted career. Topics include her research interests in subject and descriptive cataloging (Svenonius notes that it "takes some untangling of vocabulary and semantics to see that the traditional bifurcation separating subject and descriptive cataloging is artificial"); her teaching experience, especially her use of Andrew Osborn's "active learning" seminar method; and her views about the development of information science and its relationship to librarianship.

0.006762158 = product of:
  0.03381079 = sum of:
    0.03381079 = weight(_text_:it in 2379) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03381079 = score(doc=2379,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.22368698 = fieldWeight in 2379, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2379)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The advent of the computer has brought epistemological questions, heretofore the province of classificationists and philosophers, into the limelight of popular thought. No longer of only theoretical interest, such questions stand in need of operational answers, at least if computers are to process information intelligently. Answers to these questions are embodied in what today are known as knowledge representations. Knowledge representations are used for a variety of related purposes, including language and text understanding, cognitive research, expert system development and information retrieval. This paper focuses on the use of three computer-based knowledge representations of potential relevance for information retrieval: hypertext systems, cluster analysis and knowledge representations accomodating rule-based reasoning. It then considers research that might be pursued to inform the development of knowledge representations for information retrieval