Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.015078641 = product of:
  0.060314562 = sum of:
    0.060314562 = weight(_text_:digital in 5899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060314562 = score(doc=5899,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.30507088 = fieldWeight in 5899, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5899)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

S.R. Ranganathan is credited with the introduction of the term "facet" in the field of knowledge organization towards the middle of the twentieth century. Facets have traditionally been used to organize document collections and to express complex subjects. In the digital world, they act as filters to facilitate navigation and improve retrieval. But the popularity of the term does not mean that a definitive characterization of the concept has been established. Indeed, several conceptualizations of the facet co-exist. This article provides an overview of formal and informal definitions found in the literature of knowledge organization, followed by a discussion of four common conceptualizations of the facet: process vs product, nature vs function, object vs subject and organization vs navigation.

0.009475192 = product of:
  0.03790077 = sum of:
    0.03790077 = weight(_text_:library in 697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03790077 = score(doc=697,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.28758827 = fieldWeight in 697, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=697)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The content of master's programs accredited by the American Library Association was examined to assess the status of knowledge organization (KO) as a subject in current training. Data collected show that KO remains very visible in a majority of programs, mainly in the form of required and electives courses focusing on descriptive cataloging, classification, and metadata. Observed tendencies include, however, the recent elimination of the required KO course in several programs, the reality that one third of KO electives listed in course catalogs have not been scheduled in the past three years, and the fact that two-thirds of those teaching KO specialize in other areas of information science.