Search (14 results, page 1 of 1)

0.031112304 = product of:
  0.062224608 = sum of:
    0.043081827 = weight(_text_:digital in 12) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043081827 = score(doc=12,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.21790776 = fieldWeight in 12, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=12)
    0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 12) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01914278 = score(doc=12,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 12, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=12)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The vision of the semantic web is gradually unfolding and taking shape through a web of linked data, a part of which is built by capturing semantics stored in existing knowledge organization systems (KOS), subject metadata and resource metadata. The content of vast bibliographic collections is currently categorized by some widely used bibliographic classification and we may soon see them being mined for information and linked in a meaningful way across the web. Bibliographic classifications are designed for knowledge mediation, which offers both a rich terminology and different ways in which concepts can be categorized and related to each other in the universe of knowledge. From 1990 to 2010 they have been used in various resource discovery services on the web, and they continue to be used to support information integration in a number of international digital library projects. In this chapter we will revisit some of the ways in which universal classifications, as language-independent concept schemes, can assist humans and computers in structuring and presenting information and formulating queries. Most importantly, we will highlight issues important to understanding bibliographic classifications, identifying both their unused potential and their technical limitations.

0.03104268 = product of:
  0.06208536 = sum of:
    0.032486375 = weight(_text_:library in 3961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032486375 = score(doc=3961,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.24650425 = fieldWeight in 3961, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3961)
    0.029598987 = product of:
      0.059197973 = sum of:
        0.059197973 = weight(_text_:project in 3961) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059197973 = score(doc=3961,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.27981415 = fieldWeight in 3961, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3961)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper analyses the approach to resource discovery in the educational domain and stresses this community's need for a subject approach to information. The use of both general (Dublin Core) and domain specific (IEEE Learning Object Metadata/IMS Metadata) metadata schemas for learning resource discovery suggests that library classification could be used for subject description. There are several reasons why this indexing language might be suitable for the indexing of education resources. The paper will explain the reasoning behind the application of Universal Decimal Classification in the EASEL (Educator's Access to Services in the Electronic Landscape - http://www.fdgroup.com/easel) project. EASEL deploys two Dublin Core and several different application profiles of LOM i.e. IMS Metadata and this paper will explain how these two types of metadata support the use of classification.

0.028911047 = product of:
  0.057822093 = sum of:
    0.033156272 = weight(_text_:library in 1801) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033156272 = score(doc=1801,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.25158736 = fieldWeight in 1801, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1801)
    0.024665821 = product of:
      0.049331643 = sum of:
        0.049331643 = weight(_text_:project in 1801) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049331643 = score(doc=1801,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.23317845 = fieldWeight in 1801, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1801)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Subject access to bibliographic data supported by knowledge organization systems, such as subject headings and classification, plays an important role in ensuring the quality of library catalogues. It is generally acknowledged that users have a strong affinity to subject browsing and searching and are inclined tofollow meaningful links between resources. Research studies, however, show that library OPACs are not designed to support or make good use of subject indexes and their underlying semantic structure. A project entitled OPAC semantici was initiated in 2003 by a number of Italian subject specialists and the Italian "Research Group on Subject Indexing" (GRIS) with a goal to analyse and evaluate subject access in Italian library catalogues through a survey of 150 OPACs. Applying the same methodology, a follow-up survey to assess whether any improvement had taken place was conducted five years later, in spring 2008. Analysis of these two surveys indicated that there was a slight improvement. The authors discuss the results of these two surveys, analyse the problems in subject searching in OPACs and explain the recommendations for subject searching enhancement put forward by GRIS. Using the example of Italian OPACs, the authors will attempt to outline some requirements for a subject searching interface and explain how this can be achieved through authority control.

0.017266076 = product of:
  0.069064304 = sum of:
    0.069064304 = product of:
      0.13812861 = sum of:
        0.13812861 = weight(_text_:project in 1134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13812861 = score(doc=1134,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.6528997 = fieldWeight in 1134, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1134)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.017009754 = product of:
  0.034019507 = sum of:
    0.016578136 = weight(_text_:library in 3370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016578136 = score(doc=3370,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.12579368 = fieldWeight in 3370, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3370)
    0.017441371 = product of:
      0.034882743 = sum of:
        0.034882743 = weight(_text_:project in 3370) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034882743 = score(doc=3370,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.16488208 = fieldWeight in 3370, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3370)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

"Last week, I received an email from Yulia Skora in Ukraine who is working on the mapping between UDC Summary and BBK (Bibliographic Library Classification) Summary. It reminded me of yet another challenging area of work. When responding to Yulia I realised that the issues with mapping, for instance, UDC Summary to Dewey Summaries [pdf] are often made more difficult because we have to deal with classification summaries in both systems and we cannot use a known exactMatch in many situations. In 2008, following advice received from colleagues in the HILT project, two of our colleagues quickly mapped 1000 classes of Dewey Summaries to UDC Master Reference File as a whole. This appeared to be relatively simple. The mapping in this case is simply an answer to a question "and how would you say e.g. Art metal work in UDC?" But when in 2009 we realised that we were going to release 2000 classes of UDC Summary as linked data, we decided to wait until we had our UDC Summary set defined and completed to be able to publish it mapped to the Dewey Summaries. As we arrived at this stage, little did we realise how much more complex the reversed mapping of UDC Summary to Dewey Summaries would turn out to be. Mapping the Dewey Summaries to UDC highlighted situations in which the logic and structure of two systems do not agree. Especially because Dewey tends to enumerate combinations of subject and attributes that do not always logically belong together. For instance, 850 Literatures of Italian, Sardinian, Dalmatian, Romanian, Rhaeto-Romanic languages Italian literature. This class mixes languages from three different subgroups of Romance languages. Italian and Sardinian belong to Italo Romance sub-family; Romanian and Dalmatian are Balkan Romance languages and Rhaeto Romance is the third subgroup that includes Friulian Ladin and Romanch. As UDC literature is based on a strict classification of language families, Dewey class 850 has to be mapped to 3 narrower UDC classes 821.131 Literature of Italo-Romance Languages , 821.132 Literature of Rhaeto-Romance languages and 821.135 Literature of Balkan-Romance Languages, or to a broader class 821.13 Literature of Romance languages. Hence we have to be sure that we have all these classes listed in the UDC Summary to be able to express UDC-DDC many-to-one, specific-to-broader relationships.
Another challenge appears when, e.g., mapping Dewey class 890 Literatures of other specific languages and language families, which does not make sense in UDC in which all languages and literatures have equal status. Standard UDC schedules do not have a selection of preferred literatures and other literatures. In principle, UDC does not allow classes entitled 'others' which do not have defined semantic content. If entities are subdivided and there is no provision for an item outside the listed subclasses then this item is subsumed to a top class or a broader class where all unspecifiied or general members of that class may be expected. If specification is needed this can be divised by adding an alphabetical extension to the broader class. Here we have to find and list in the UDC Summary all literatures that are 'unpreferred' i.e. lumped in the 890 classes and map them again as many-to-one specific-to-broader match. The example below illustrates another interesting case. Classes Dewey 061 and UDC 06 cover roughy the same semantic field but in the subdivision the Dewey Summaries lists a combination of subject and place and as an enumerative classification, provides ready made numbers for combinations of place that are most common in an average (American?) library. This is a frequent approach in the schemes created with the physical book arrangement, i.e. library schelves, in mind. UDC, designed as an indexing language for information retrieval, keeps subject and place in separate tables and allows for any concept of place such as, e.g. (7) North America to be used in combination with any subject as these may coincide in documents. Thus combinations such as Newspapers in North America, or Organizations in North America would not be offered as ready made combinations. There is no selection of 'preferred' or 'most needed countries' or languages or cultures in the standard UDC edition: <Tabelle>
Precombined subjects, such as those shown above from Dewey, may be expressed in UDC Summary as examples of combination within various records. To express an exact match UDC class 07 has to contain example of combination 07(7) Journals. The Press - North America. In some cases we have, therefore, added examples to UDC Summary that represent exact match to Dewey Summaries. It is unfortunate that DDC has so many classes on the top level that deal with a selection of countries or languages that are given a preferred status in the scheme, and repeating these preferences in examples of combinations of UDC emulates an unwelcome cultural bias which we have to balance out somehow. This brings us to another challenge.. UDC 913(7) Regional Geography - North America [contains 2 concepts each of which has its URI] is an exact match to Dewey 917 [represented as one concept, 1 URI]. It seems that, because they represent an exact match to Dewey numbers, these UDC examples of combinations may also need a separate URIs so that they can be published as SKOS data. Albeit challenging, mapping proves to be a very useful exercise and I am looking forward to future work here especially in relation to our plans to map UDC Summary to Colon Classification. We are discussing this project with colleagues from DRTC in Bangalore (India)."

0.011604695 = product of:
  0.04641878 = sum of:
    0.04641878 = weight(_text_:library in 3229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04641878 = score(doc=3229,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.3522223 = fieldWeight in 3229, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3229)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

By providing the means for systematic arrangement, library classification has been used for centuries to organise document collections. The development of systems such as DDC, LCC a,d UDC, made classification sophisticated enough to be used both for the systematic arrangement of a collection and for information retrieval through the use of classified catalogues. Relatively short alphanumeric classification indexes are able to indicate quite sophisticated concepts, helping to overcome language barriers. With the advent of library automation, their role in the document retrieval process has become less important, in comparison with retrieval by natural language

Footnote

Übers. d. Titels: Online library classification: translation of notation into natural language

0.011485667 = product of:
  0.045942668 = sum of:
    0.045942668 = weight(_text_:library in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045942668 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.34860963 = fieldWeight in 1934, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1934)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.011485667 = product of:
  0.045942668 = sum of:
    0.045942668 = weight(_text_:library in 3789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045942668 = score(doc=3789,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.34860963 = fieldWeight in 3789, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3789)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.0086163655 = product of:
  0.034465462 = sum of:
    0.034465462 = weight(_text_:digital in 1736) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034465462 = score(doc=1736,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.17432621 = fieldWeight in 1736, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1736)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to present a general overview with up-to-date information on the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) use worldwide. Design/methodology/approach - The research combined e-mail interviews with LIS professionals in 208 countries, literature research and information obtained from UDC distributors/publishers (AENOR, BSI, UDC Consortium). The following categorisation of UDC use was offered: A - dominant system; B - used in some kind of libraries only; or C - rarely used. Findings - The paper finds that, of the 208 countries contacted and researched through the literature in 2004-2006, the UDC was found to be used in 124 (60 per cent) of these. In 34 (28 per cent) of the countries researched (in Europe, Asia and Africa), UDC is the main classification system used across national information networks. In 45 (36 per cent) of the countries it is used in certain kinds of libraries. In the remaining 45 (36 per cent) of the countries it is used rarely, in only a few libraries or information centres. Research limitations/implications - It was beyond the scope of this research to provide any information regarding the actual number of institutions using UDC in a given country or to give an estimate of the size and number of document collections organised by it. Although a decline in UDC use since the 1980s was reported from a number of countries, it was not possible to measure this accurately. Practical implications - The interest shown for using UDC in the organisation of digital collections, information exchange and cross domain and cross collection resource discovery depends on accurate knowledge of its actual usage worldwide. This gives a measure of its global importance and verifies its credentials as an indexing standard. This research, which attempted wider and more systematic coverage than previous surveys, should help clarify the status of UDC and its potential use in the networked environment. Originality/value - The paper provides up-to-date information on the presence of the UDC system across countries and languages.

0.008121594 = product of:
  0.032486375 = sum of:
    0.032486375 = weight(_text_:library in 2632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032486375 = score(doc=2632,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.24650425 = fieldWeight in 2632, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2632)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper focuses on the need for knowledge organization (KO) tools, such as library classifications, thesauri and subject heading systems, to be fully disclosed and available in the open network environment. The authors look at the place and value of traditional library knowledge organization tools in relation to the technical environment and expectations of the Semantic Web. Future requirements in this context are explored, stressing the need for KO systems to support semantic interoperability. In order to be fully shareable KO tools need to be reframed and reshaped in terms of conceptual and data models. The authors suggest that some useful approaches to this already exist in methodological and technical developments within the fields of ontology modelling and lexicographic and terminological data interchange.

0.005093075 = product of:
  0.0203723 = sum of:
    0.0203723 = product of:
      0.0407446 = sum of:
        0.0407446 = weight(_text_:22 in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0407446 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22.12.2007 17:22:31

0.005093075 = product of:
  0.0203723 = sum of:
    0.0203723 = product of:
      0.0407446 = sum of:
        0.0407446 = weight(_text_:22 in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0407446 = score(doc=1428,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.0049331645 = product of:
  0.019732658 = sum of:
    0.019732658 = product of:
      0.039465316 = sum of:
        0.039465316 = weight(_text_:project in 2875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039465316 = score(doc=2875,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.18654276 = fieldWeight in 2875, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2875)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to provide an overview of principles and procedures involved in creating a faceted classification scheme for use in resource discovery in an online environment. Design/methodology/approach - Facet analysis provides an established rigorous methodology for the conceptual organization of a subject field, and the structuring of an associated classification or controlled vocabulary. This paper explains how that methodology was applied to the humanities in the FATKS project, where the objective was to explore the potential of facet analytical theory for creating a controlled vocabulary for the humanities, and to establish the requirements of a faceted classification appropriate to an online environment. A detailed faceted vocabulary was developed for two areas of the humanities within a broader facet framework for the whole of knowledge. Research issues included how to create a data model which made the faceted structure explicit and machine-readable and provided for its further development and use. Findings - In order to support easy facet combination in indexing, and facet searching and browsing on the interface, faceted classification requires a formalized data structure and an appropriate tool for its management. The conceptual framework of a faceted system proper can be applied satisfactorily to humanities, and fully integrated within a vocabulary management system. Research limitations/implications - The procedures described in this paper are concerned only with the structuring of the classification, and do not extend to indexing, retrieval and application issues. Practical implications - Many stakeholders in the domain of resource discovery consider developing their own classification system and supporting tools. The methods described in this paper may clarify the process of building a faceted classification and may provide some useful ideas with respect to the vocabulary maintenance tool. Originality/value - As far as the authors are aware there is no comparable research in this area.

0.004785695 = product of:
  0.01914278 = sum of:
    0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 4879) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01914278 = score(doc=4879,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 4879, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4879)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The paper gives a short overview of the history of use of UDC in Internet subject gateways (SGs) with an English interface, from 1993 to 2006. There were in total, nine quality controlled SGs that were functional for shorter or longer periods of time. Their typology and functionality is described. Quality SGs have evolved and the role of classification has changed accordingly from supporting subject organization on the interface and automatic categorization of resources, towards supporting a semantic linking, control and vocabulary mapping between different indexing systems in subject hubs and federated SGs. In this period, many SGs ceased to exist and little information remains available regarding their status. SGs currently using UDC, for some part of their resource organization, do not use a UDC subject hierarchy at the interface and its role in resource indexing has become more difficult to observe. Since 2000, UDC has become more prevalent in East European SGs, portals and hubs, which are outside the scope of this research. This paper is an attempt to provide a record on this particular application of UDC and to offer some consideration of the changes in requirements when it comes to the use of library classification in resource discovery.