Search (95 results, page 1 of 5)

0.049429227 = product of:
  0.123573065 = sum of:
    0.06692801 = weight(_text_:it in 2871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06692801 = score(doc=2871,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.44278538 = fieldWeight in 2871, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2871)
    0.05664506 = weight(_text_:22 in 2871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05664506 = score(doc=2871,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2871, 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=2871)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This is a report on how Doyle and others made a faceted classification scheme for content management systems and made it browsable on the web (see CMS Review in Example Web Sites, below). They discuss why they did it, how, their use of OPML and XFML, how they did research to find terms and categories, and they also include their taxonomy. It is interesting to see facets used in a business environment.

Date

30. 7.2004 12:22:52

0.038952045 = product of:
  0.09738011 = sum of:
    0.04781568 = weight(_text_:it in 88) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04781568 = score(doc=88,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.31634116 = fieldWeight in 88, 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=88)
    0.04956443 = weight(_text_:22 in 88) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04956443 = score(doc=88,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 88, 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=88)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.038114388 = product of:
  0.09528597 = sum of:
    0.038640905 = weight(_text_:it in 2474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038640905 = score(doc=2474,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.25564227 = fieldWeight in 2474, 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=2474)
    0.05664506 = weight(_text_:22 in 2474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05664506 = score(doc=2474,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2474, 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=2474)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Van Dijck builds up an example of actual XFML by showing how to organize tourist information about what restaurants in what cities feature which kind of music: <facet id="city">City</facet> and <topic id="ny" facetid="city"><name>New York</name></topic> combine to mean that New York is the name of a city internally represented as "ny". It is written in the usual clear and practical style of articles on xml.com. Highly recommended as an introduction for anyone interested in XFML.

Source

http://www.xml.com/lpt/a/2003/01/22/xfml.html

0.03707192 = product of:
  0.0926798 = sum of:
    0.050196007 = weight(_text_:it in 2464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050196007 = score(doc=2464,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.33208904 = fieldWeight in 2464, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2464)
    0.042483795 = weight(_text_:22 in 2464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042483795 = score(doc=2464,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = 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)
  0.4 = 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

0.033350088 = product of:
  0.083375216 = sum of:
    0.03381079 = weight(_text_:it in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03381079 = score(doc=2509,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.22368698 = fieldWeight in 2509, 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=2509)
    0.04956443 = weight(_text_:22 in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04956443 = score(doc=2509,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2509, 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=2509)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Edited version of a report to the Australian Library and Information Association on the Conference on classification theory in the computer age, Albany, New York, 18-19 Nov 88, and on the meeting of the Dewey Editorial Policy Committee which preceded it. The focus of the Editorial Policy Committee Meeting lay in the following areas: browsing; potential for improved subject access; system design; potential conflict between shelf location and information retrieval; and users. At the Conference on classification theory in the computer age the following papers were presented: Applications of artificial intelligence to bibliographic classification, by Irene Travis; Automation and classification, By Elaine Svenonious; Subject classification and language processing for retrieval in large data bases, by Diana Scott; Implications for information processing, by Carol Mandel; and implications for information science education, by Richard Halsey.

Date

8.11.1995 11:52:22

0.033350088 = product of:
  0.083375216 = sum of:
    0.03381079 = weight(_text_:it in 1673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03381079 = score(doc=1673,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.22368698 = fieldWeight in 1673, 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=1673)
    0.04956443 = weight(_text_:22 in 1673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04956443 = score(doc=1673,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1673, 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=1673)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The Wolverhampton Web Library (WWLib) is a WWW search engine that provides access to UK based information. The experimental version developed in 1995, was a success but highlighted the need for a much higher degree of automation. An interesting feature of the experimental WWLib was that it organised information according to DDC. Discusses the advantages of classification and describes the automatic classifier that is being developed in Java as part of the new, fully automated WWLib

Date

1. 8.1996 22:08:06

0.02858579 = product of:
  0.07146447 = sum of:
    0.028980678 = weight(_text_:it in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028980678 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.19173169 = fieldWeight in 780, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=780)
    0.042483795 = weight(_text_:22 in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042483795 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 780, 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=780)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Networked orientated standards for vocabulary publishing and exchange and proposals for terminological services and terminology registries will improve sharing and use of all knowledge organization systems in the networked information environment. This means that documentary classifications may also become more applicable for use outside their original domain of application. The paper summarises some characteristics common to documentary classifications and explains some terminological, functional and implementation aspects. The original purpose behind each classification scheme determines the functions that the vocabulary is designed to facilitate. These functions influence the structure, semantics and syntax, scheme coverage and format in which classification data are published and made available. The author suggests that attention should be paid to the differences between documentary classifications as these may determine their suitability for a certain purpose and may impose different requirements with respect to their use online. As we speak, many classifications are being created for knowledge organization and it may be important to promote expertise from the bibliographic domain with respect to building and using classification systems.

Date

22.12.2007 17:22:31

0.022658026 = product of:
  0.11329012 = sum of:
    0.11329012 = weight(_text_:22 in 7684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11329012 = score(doc=7684,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 7684, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=7684)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Journal of academic librarianship. 10(1984), S.17-22

0.017256778 = product of:
  0.043141942 = sum of:
    0.028980678 = weight(_text_:it in 2047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028980678 = score(doc=2047,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.19173169 = fieldWeight in 2047, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2047)
    0.014161265 = weight(_text_:22 in 2047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014161265 = score(doc=2047,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 2047, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2047)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Date

2. 1.2004 10:35:22

Footnote

Rez. in: Knowledge organization 30(2003) no.1, S.40-42 (J.-E. Mai): "Introduction: This is a collection of papers presented at the National Seminar an Classification in the Digital Environment held in Bangalore, India, an August 9-11 2001. The collection contains 18 papers dealing with various issues related to knowledge organization and classification theory. The issue of transferring the knowledge, traditions, and theories of bibliographic classification to the digital environment is an important one, and I was excited to learn that proceedings from this seminar were available. Many of us experience frustration an a daily basis due to poorly constructed Web search mechanisms and Web directories. As a community devoted to making information easily accessible we have something to offer the Web community and a seminar an the topic was indeed much needed. Below are brief summaries of the 18 papers presented at the seminar. The order of the summaries follows the order of the papers in the proceedings. The titles of the paper are given in parentheses after the author's name. AHUJA and WESLEY (From "Subject" to "Need": Shift in Approach to Classifying Information an the Internet/Web) argue that traditional bibliographic classification systems fall in the digital environment. One problem is that bibliographic classification systems have been developed to organize library books an shelves and as such are unidimensional and tied to the paper-based environment. Another problem is that they are "subject" oriented in the sense that they assume a relatively stable universe of knowledge containing basic and fixed compartments of knowledge that can be identified and represented. Ahuja and Wesley suggest that classification in the digital environment should be need-oriented instead of subjectoriented ("One important link that binds knowledge and human being is his societal need. ... Hence, it will be ideal to organise knowledge based upon need instead of subject." (p. 10)).
AHUJA and SATIJA (Relevance of Ranganathan's Classification Theory in the Age of Digital Libraries) note that traditional bibliographic classification systems have been applied in the digital environment with only limited success. They find that the "inherent flexibility of electronic manipulation of documents or their surrogates should allow a more organic approach to allocation of new subjects and appropriate linkages between subject hierarchies." (p. 18). Ahija and Satija also suggest that it is necessary to shift from a "subject" focus to a "need" focus when applying classification theory in the digital environment. They find Ranganathan's framework applicable in the digital environment. Although Ranganathan's focus is "subject oriented and hence emphasise the hierarchical and linear relationships" (p. 26), his framework "can be successfully adopted with certain modifications ... in the digital environment." (p. 26). SHAH and KUMAR (Model for System Unification of Geographical Schedules (Space Isolates)) report an a plan to develop a single schedule for geographical Subdivision that could be used across all classification systems. The authors argue that this is needed in order to facilitate interoperability in the digital environment. SAN SEGUNDO MANUEL (The Representation of Knowledge as a Symbolization of Productive Electronic Information) distills different approaches and definitions of the term "representation" as it relates to representation of knowledge in the library and information science literature and field. SHARADA (Linguistic and Document Classification: Paradigmatic Merger Possibilities) suggests the development of a universal indexing language. The foundation for the universal indexing language is Chomsky's Minimalist Program and Ranganathan's analytico-synthetic classification theory; Acording to the author, based an these approaches, it "should not be a problem" (p. 62) to develop a universal indexing language.
SELVI (Knowledge Classification of Digital Information Materials with Special Reference to Clustering Technique) finds that it is essential to classify digital material since the amount of material that is becoming available is growing. Selvi suggests using automated classification to "group together those digital information materials or documents that are "most similar" (p. 65). This can be attained by using Cluster analysis methods. PRADHAN and THULASI (A Study of the Use of Classification and Indexing Systems by Web Resource Directories) compare and contrast the classificatory structures of Google, Yahoo, and Looksmart's directories and compare the directories to Dewey Decimal Classification, Library of Congress Classification and Colon Classification's classificatory structures. They find differentes between the directories' and the bibliographic classification systems' classificatory structures and principles. These differentes stem from the fact that bibliographic classification systems are used to "classify academic resources for the research community" (p. 83) and directories "aim to categorize a wider breath of information groups, entertainment, recreation, govt. information, commercial information" (p. 83). NEELAMEGHAN (Hierarchy, Hierarchical Relation and Hierarchical Arrangement) reviews the concept of hierarchy and the formation of hierarchical structures across a variety of domains. NEELAMEGHAN and PRADAD (Digitized Schemes for Subject Classification and Thesauri: Complementary Roles) demonstrate how thesaural relationships (NT, BT, and RT) can be applied to a classification scheme, the Colon Classification in this Gase. NEELAMEGHAN and ASUNDI (Metadata Framework for Describing Embodied Knowledge and Subject Content) propose to use the Generalized Facet Structure framework which is based an Ranganathan's General Theory of Knowledge Classification as a framework for describing the content of documents in a metadata element set for the representation of web documents. CHUDAMANI (Classified Catalogue as a Tool for Subject Based Information Retrieval in both Traditional and Electronic Library Environment) explains why the classified catalogue is superior to the alphabetic cata logue and argues that the same is true in the digital environment.
PARAMESWARAN (Classification and Indexing: Impact of Classification Theory an PRECIS) reviews the PRECIS system and finds that "it Gould not escape from the impact of the theory of classification" (p. 131). The author further argues that the purpose of classification and subject indexing is the same and that both approaches depends an syntax. This leads to the conclusion that "there is an absolute syntax as the Indian theory of classification points out" (p. 131). SATYAPAL and SANJIVINI SATYAPAL (Classifying Documents According to Postulational Approach: 1. SA TSAN- A Computer Based Learning Package) and SATYAPAL and SANJIVINI SATYAPAL (Classifying Documents According to Postulational Approach: 2. Semi-Automatic Synthesis of CC Numbers) present an application to automate classification using a facet classification system, in this Gase, the Colon Classification system. GAIKAIWARI (An Interactive Application for Faceted Classification Systems) presents an application, called SRR, for managing and using a faceted classification scheme in a digital environment. IYER (Use of Instructional Technology to Support Traditional Classroom Learning: A Case Study) describes a course an "Information and Knowledge Organization" that she teaches at the University at Albany (SUNY). The course is a conceptual course that introduces the student to various aspects of knowledge organization. GOPINATH (Universal Classification: How can it be used?) lists fifteen uses of universal classifications and discusses the entities of a number of disciplines. GOPINATH (Knowledge Classification: The Theory of Classification) briefly reviews the foundations for research in automatic classification, summarizes the history of classification, and places Ranganathan's thought in the history of classification.
Discussion The proceedings of the National Seminar an Classification in the Digital Environment give some insights. However, the depth of analysis and discussion is very uneven across the papers. Some of the papers have substantive research content while others appear to be notes used in the oral presentation. The treatments of the topics are very general in nature. Some papers have a very limited list of references while others have no bibliography. No index has been provided. The transfer of bibliographic knowledge organization theory to the digital environment is an important topic. However, as the papers at this conference have shown, it is also a difficult task. Of the 18 papers presented at this seminar an classification in the digital environment, only 4-5 papers actually deal directly with this important topic. The remaining papers deal with issues that are more or less relevant to classification in the digital environment without explicitly discussing the relation. The reason could be that the authors take up issues in knowledge organization that still need to be investigated and clarified before their application in the digital environment can be considered. Nonetheless, one wishes that the knowledge organization community would discuss the application of classification theory in the digital environment in greater detail. It is obvious from the comparisons of the classificatory structures of bibliographic classification systems and Web directories that these are different and that they probably should be different, since they serve different purposes. Interesting questions in the transformation of bibliographic classification theories to the digital environment are: "Given the existing principles in bibliographic knowledge organization, what are the optimum principles for organization of information, irrespectively of context?" and "What are the fundamental theoretical and practical principles for the construction of Web directories?" Unfortunately, the papers presented at this seminar do not attempt to answer or discuss these questions."

0.016993519 = product of:
  0.08496759 = sum of:
    0.08496759 = weight(_text_:22 in 6040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08496759 = score(doc=6040,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6040, 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=6040)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:42:47

0.014161265 = product of:
  0.070806324 = sum of:
    0.070806324 = weight(_text_:22 in 3576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.070806324 = score(doc=3576,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3576, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3576)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

8. 1.2007 12:22:40

0.014161265 = product of:
  0.070806324 = sum of:
    0.070806324 = weight(_text_:22 in 611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.070806324 = score(doc=611,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 611, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=611)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 8.2009 12:54:24

0.013385601 = product of:
  0.06692801 = sum of:
    0.06692801 = weight(_text_:it in 2108) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06692801 = score(doc=2108,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.44278538 = fieldWeight in 2108, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2108)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

It will not be an easy task to automate the Library of Congress Classification schedules because it is a very large system and also because it developed long before automation. The designers were creating a system for shelving books effiently and had not even imagined the constraints imposed by automation. A number of problems and possible solutions are discussed. The MARC format proposed for classification has some serious problems which are identified

0.013385601 = product of:
  0.06692801 = sum of:
    0.06692801 = weight(_text_:it in 2900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06692801 = score(doc=2900,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.44278538 = fieldWeight in 2900, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2900)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

An online series of articles explaining controlled vocabularies and, in particular, faceted classification. It is not yet finished, but what they have covered is very well done, practical and informative, with useful advice and a full treatment. It is worth reading now, and when they actually get to performing facet analysis and making a faceted system, it will make a very useful reference.

0.013385601 = product of:
  0.06692801 = sum of:
    0.06692801 = weight(_text_:it in 5141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06692801 = score(doc=5141,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.44278538 = fieldWeight in 5141, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5141)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

An online series of articles explaining controlled vocabularies and, in particular, faceted classification. It is not yet finished, but what they have covered is very well done, practical and informative, with useful advice and a full treatment. It is worth reading now, and when they actually get to performing facet analysis and making a faceted system, it will make a very useful reference.

0.013385601 = product of:
  0.06692801 = sum of:
    0.06692801 = weight(_text_:it in 2417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06692801 = score(doc=2417,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.44278538 = fieldWeight in 2417, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2417)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

An online series of articles explaining controlled vocabularies and, in particular, faceted classification. It is not yet finished, but what they have covered is very well done, practical and informative, with useful advice and a full treatment. It is worth reading now, and when they actually get to performing facet analysis and making a faceted system, it will make a very useful reference.

0.013385601 = product of:
  0.06692801 = sum of:
    0.06692801 = weight(_text_:it in 2461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06692801 = score(doc=2461,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.44278538 = fieldWeight in 2461, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2461)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

An online series of articles explaining controlled vocabularies and, in particular, faceted classification. It is not yet finished, but what they have covered is very well done, practical and informative, with useful advice and a full treatment. It is worth reading now, and when they actually get to performing facet analysis and making a faceted system, it will make a very useful reference.

0.013385601 = product of:
  0.06692801 = sum of:
    0.06692801 = weight(_text_:it in 2468) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06692801 = score(doc=2468,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.44278538 = fieldWeight in 2468, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2468)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

An online series of articles explaining controlled vocabularies and, in particular, faceted classification. It is not yet finished, but what they have covered is very well done, practical and informative, with useful advice and a full treatment. It is worth reading now, and when they actually get to performing facet analysis and making a faceted system, it will make a very useful reference.

0.013385601 = product of:
  0.06692801 = sum of:
    0.06692801 = weight(_text_:it in 2469) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06692801 = score(doc=2469,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.44278538 = fieldWeight in 2469, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2469)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

An online series of articles explaining controlled vocabularies and, in particular, faceted classification. It is not yet finished, but what they have covered is very well done, practical and informative, with useful advice and a full treatment. It is worth reading now, and when they actually get to performing facet analysis and making a faceted system, it will make a very useful reference.

0.012960553 = product of:
  0.064802766 = sum of:
    0.064802766 = weight(_text_:it in 4394) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064802766 = score(doc=4394,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.4287251 = fieldWeight in 4394, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4394)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The term "facet" has been used in various places, while in most cases it is just a buzz word to replace what is indeed "aspect" or "category". The references below either define and explain the original concept of facet or provide guidelines for building 'real' faceted search/browse. I was interested in faceted classification because it seems to be a natural and efficient way for organizing and browsing Web collections. However, to automatically generate facets and their isolates is extremely difficult since it involves concept extraction and concept grouping, both of which are difficult problems by themselves. And it is almost impossible to achieve mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive 'true' facets without human judgment. Nowadays, faceted search/browse widely exists, implicitly or explicitly, on a majority of retail websites due to the multi-aspects nature of the data. However, it is still rarely seen on any digital library sites. (I could be wrong since I haven't kept myself updated with this field for a while.)