Search (47 results, page 1 of 3)

0.08125154 = product of:
  0.10833538 = sum of:
    0.0844228 = weight(_text_:digital in 2047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0844228 = score(doc=2047,freq=48.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.42701027 = fieldWeight in 2047, product of:
          6.928203 = tf(freq=48.0), with freq of:
            48.0 = termFreq=48.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2047)
    0.017121824 = weight(_text_:library in 2047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017121824 = score(doc=2047,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.12991914 = fieldWeight in 2047, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2047)
    0.0067907665 = product of:
      0.013581533 = sum of:
        0.013581533 = weight(_text_:22 in 2047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013581533 = score(doc=2047,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

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."

Imprint

Bangalore : Sarada Ranganathan Endowment for Library science

0.07571602 = product of:
  0.10095469 = sum of:
    0.051698197 = weight(_text_:digital in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051698197 = score(doc=1202,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
    0.034457 = weight(_text_:library in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034457 = score(doc=1202,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.2614572 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
    0.014799493 = product of:
      0.029598987 = sum of:
        0.029598987 = weight(_text_:project in 1202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029598987 = score(doc=1202,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.13990708 = fieldWeight in 1202, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1202)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

The concept of c-space is proposed as a visualization schema relating containers of content to cataloging surrogates and classification structures. Possible applications of keyword vector clusters within c-space could include improved retrieval rates through the use of captioning within visual hierarchies, tracings of semantic bleeding among subclasses, and access to buried knowledge within subject-neutral publication containers. The Scholastica Project is described as one example, following a tradition of research dating back to the 1980's. Preliminary focus group assessment indicates that this type of classification rendering may offer digital library searchers enriched entry strategies and an expanded range of re-entry vocabularies. Those of us who work in traditional libraries typically assume that our systems of classification: Library of Congress Classification (LCC) and Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), are descriptive rather than prescriptive. In other words, LCC classes and subclasses approximate natural groupings of texts that reflect an underlying order of knowledge, rather than arbitrary categories prescribed by librarians to facilitate efficient shelving. Philosophical support for this assumption has traditionally been found in a number of places, from the archetypal tree of knowledge, to Aristotelian categories, to the concept of discursive formations proposed by Michel Foucault. Gary P. Radford has elegantly described an encounter with Foucault's discursive formations in the traditional library setting: "Just by looking at the titles on the spines, you can see how the books cluster together...You can identify those books that seem to form the heart of the discursive formation and those books that reside on the margins. Moving along the shelves, you see those books that tend to bleed over into other classifications and that straddle multiple discursive formations. You can physically and sensually experience...those points that feel like state borders or national boundaries, those points where one subject ends and another begins, or those magical places where one subject has morphed into another..."
But what happens to this awareness in a digital library? Can discursive formations be represented in cyberspace, perhaps through diagrams in a visualization interface? And would such a schema be helpful to a digital library user? To approach this question, it is worth taking a moment to reconsider what Radford is looking at. First, he looks at titles to see how the books cluster. To illustrate, I scanned one hundred books on the shelves of a college library under subclass HT 101-395, defined by the LCC subclass caption as Urban groups. The City. Urban sociology. Of the first 100 titles in this sequence, fifty included the word "urban" or variants (e.g. "urbanization"). Another thirty-five used the word "city" or variants. These keywords appear to mark their titles as the heart of this discursive formation. The scattering of titles not using "urban" or "city" used related terms such as "town," "community," or in one case "skyscrapers." So we immediately see some empirical correlation between keywords and classification. But we also see a problem with the commonly used search technique of title-keyword. A student interested in urban studies will want to know about this entire subclass, and may wish to browse every title available therein. A title-keyword search on "urban" will retrieve only half of the titles, while a search on "city" will retrieve just over a third. There will be no overlap, since no titles in this sample contain both words. The only place where both words appear in a common string is in the LCC subclass caption, but captions are not typically indexed in library Online Public Access Catalogs (OPACs). In a traditional library, this problem is mitigated when the student goes to the shelf looking for any one of the books and suddenly discovers a much wider selection than the keyword search had led him to expect. But in a digital library, the issue of non-retrieval can be more problematic, as studies have indicated. Micco and Popp reported that, in a study funded partly by the U.S. Department of Education, 65 of 73 unskilled users searching for material on U.S./Soviet foreign relations found some material but never realized they had missed a large percentage of what was in the database.

0.07501016 = product of:
  0.15002032 = sum of:
    0.11939187 = weight(_text_:digital in 2164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11939187 = score(doc=2164,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.60388374 = fieldWeight in 2164, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2164)
    0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 2164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030628446 = score(doc=2164,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 2164, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2164)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The paper discusses practical methods of apply DDC to digital library services arising from recent technical developments. These include the use of DDC summaries to create hierarchical browsing and tag cloud interfaces, the utility of DDC as a switching language between different subject heading and classification schemes, and the development of terminology servers for interoperability with digital libraries. The focus is on services based in Europe.

0.07466953 = product of:
  0.14933906 = sum of:
    0.10339639 = weight(_text_:digital in 3438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10339639 = score(doc=3438,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.52297866 = fieldWeight in 3438, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3438)
    0.045942668 = weight(_text_:library in 3438) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045942668 = score(doc=3438,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.34860963 = fieldWeight in 3438, 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=3438)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

0.062224608 = product of:
  0.124449216 = sum of:
    0.086163655 = weight(_text_:digital in 4742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.086163655 = score(doc=4742,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.4358155 = fieldWeight in 4742, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4742)
    0.03828556 = weight(_text_:library in 4742) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03828556 = score(doc=4742,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.29050803 = fieldWeight in 4742, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4742)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

0.05604878 = product of:
  0.11209756 = sum of:
    0.085297674 = weight(_text_:digital in 232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.085297674 = score(doc=232,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.43143538 = fieldWeight in 232, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=232)
    0.026799891 = weight(_text_:library in 232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026799891 = score(doc=232,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 232, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=232)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper examines some traditional information searching methods and their role in Hungarian OPACs. What challenges are there in the digital and online environment? How do users work with them and do they give users satisfactory results? What kinds of techniques are users employing? In this paper I examine the user interfaces of UDC, thesauri, subject headings etc. in the Hungarian library. The key question of the paper is whether a universal system or local solutions is the best approach for searching in the digital environment.

0.04149259 = product of:
  0.08298518 = sum of:
    0.048741527 = weight(_text_:digital in 6486) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048741527 = score(doc=6486,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.2465345 = fieldWeight in 6486, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6486)
    0.034243647 = weight(_text_:library in 6486) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034243647 = score(doc=6486,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.25983828 = fieldWeight in 6486, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6486)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The scatter of items dealing with similar concepts through the physical library is a consequence of a classification process that produces a single notation to enable relative location. Compromises must be made to place an item where it is most appropriate for a given user community. No such compromise is needed with a digital library where the item can be considered to occupy a very large number of relative locations, as befits the needs of the user. Interfaces to these digital libraries can reuse the knowledge structures of their physical counterparts yet still address the problem of scatter. View-based searching is an approach that takes advantage of the knowledge structures but addresses the problem of scatter by applying a facetted approach to information retrieval. This paper describes the most recent developments in the implementation of a view-based searching system for a University Library OPAC. The user interface exploits the knowledge structures in the Dewey Decimal Classification Scheme (DDC) in navigable views with implicit Boolean searching. DDC classifies multifaceted items by building a single relative code from components. These codes may already have been combined in the schedules or be built according to well-documented instructions. Rules can be applied to decode these numbers to provide codes for each additional facet. To enhance the retrieval power of the view-based searching system, multiple facet codes are being extracted through decomposition from single Dewey Class Codes. This paper presents the results of applying automatic decomposition in respect of Geographic Area and the creation of a view (by Geographic Area) for the full collection of over 250,000 library items. This is the first step in demonstrating how the problem of scatter of subject matter across the disciplines of the Dewey Decimal Classification and the physical library collection can be addressed through the use of facets and view-based searching

0.040475465 = product of:
  0.08095093 = sum of:
    0.04641878 = weight(_text_:library in 6955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04641878 = score(doc=6955,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.3522223 = fieldWeight in 6955, 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=6955)
    0.034532152 = product of:
      0.069064304 = sum of:
        0.069064304 = weight(_text_:project in 6955) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.069064304 = score(doc=6955,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.32644984 = fieldWeight in 6955, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6955)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper aims to explore the changes in the role of classification and the opportunities presented for classification in the twenty-first century, especially in respect to the development of information technology. The issues arose as part of the EC funded MIRACLE project that represents the foundation for a virtual music library to serve visually impaired people. The MIRACLE partners chose the UDC as the common classification for the converging music catalogues. This paper investigates the nature of adaptation required by each participating library and the way in which the classification is used as a searching tool. Further developments in the use of IT-assisted classification are proposed

0.03621646 = product of:
  0.07243292 = sum of:
    0.03790077 = weight(_text_:library in 6109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03790077 = score(doc=6109,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.28758827 = fieldWeight in 6109, 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=6109)
    0.034532152 = product of:
      0.069064304 = sum of:
        0.069064304 = weight(_text_:project in 6109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.069064304 = score(doc=6109,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.32644984 = fieldWeight in 6109, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6109)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This article describes FAST, the Faceted Application of Subject Terminology, a project at OCLC to make Library of Congress Subject Headings easier to use in Dublin Core metadata by breaking out facets of space, time, and form. Work on FAST can be watched at its web site, http://www.miskatonic.org/library/, which has recent presentations and reports. It is interesting to see facets and Dublin Core combined, though both LCSH and FAST subject headings are beyond what most people making a small faceted classification would want or need.

0.035868883 = product of:
  0.071737766 = sum of:
    0.05136547 = weight(_text_:library in 769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05136547 = score(doc=769,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.38975742 = fieldWeight in 769, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=769)
    0.0203723 = product of:
      0.0407446 = sum of:
        0.0407446 = weight(_text_:22 in 769) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0407446 = score(doc=769,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 769, 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=769)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The Hierarchical Interface to Library of Congress Classification (HILCC) is a system developed by the Columbia University Library to leverage call number data from the MARC holdings records in Columbia's online catalog to create a structured, hierarchical menuing system that provides subject access to the library's electronic resources. In this paper, the authors describe a research initiative at the Cornell University Library to discover if the Columbia HILCC scheme can be used as developed or in modified form to create a virtual undergraduate print collection outside the context of the traditional online catalog. Their results indicate that, with certain adjustments, an HILCC model can indeed, be used to represent the holdings of a large research library's undergraduate collection of approximately 150,000 titles, but that such a model is not infinitely scalable and may require a new approach to browsing such a large information space.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Source

Library resources and technical services. 50(2006) no.3, S.157-165

0.0350769 = product of:
  0.0701538 = sum of:
    0.043081827 = weight(_text_:digital in 1489) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043081827 = score(doc=1489,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.21790776 = fieldWeight in 1489, 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=1489)
    0.027071979 = weight(_text_:library in 1489) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027071979 = score(doc=1489,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.2054202 = fieldWeight in 1489, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1489)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In 2001, a group of information architects involved in designing websites, and knowledge management specialists involved in creating access to corporate knowledge bases appeared to have re-discovered facet analysis and faceted classification. These groups have been instrumental in creating new and different ways of handling digital content of the Internet. Some of these practitioners explicitly use the forms and language of facet analysis and faceted classification, while others seem to do so implicitly. Following a brief overview of the work and discussions on facets and faceted classification in recent years, we focus on our observations about new information resources which seem more in line with the Fourth law of Library Science ("Save the time of the reader") than most library OPACs today. These new developments on the Internet point to a partial grasp of a disciplined approach to subject access. This is where Ranganathan and Neelameghan's approach needs to be reviewed for the new audience of information system designers. A report on the work undertaken by us forms a principal part of this paper.

0.032027874 = product of:
  0.06405575 = sum of:
    0.048741527 = weight(_text_:digital in 2) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048741527 = score(doc=2,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.2465345 = fieldWeight in 2, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2)
    0.015314223 = weight(_text_:library in 2) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015314223 = score(doc=2,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.11620321 = fieldWeight in 2, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In the present work we discuss opportunities, problems, tools and techniques encountered when interconnecting discipline-specific subject classifications, primarily organized as search devices in bibliographic databases, with general classifications originally devised for book shelving in public libraries. We first state the fundamental distinction between topical (or subject) classifications and object classifications. Then we trace the structural limitations that have constrained subject classifications since their library origins, and the devices that were used to overcome the gap with genuine knowledge representation. After recalling some general notions on structure, dynamics and interferences of subject classifications and of the objects they refer to, we sketch a synthetic overview on discipline-specific classifications in Mathematics, Computing and Physics, on one hand, and on general classifications on the other. In this setting we present The Scientific Classifications Page, which collects groups of Web pages produced by a pool of software tools for developing hypertextual presentations of single or paired subject classifications from sequential source files, as well as facilities for gathering information from KWIC lists of classification descriptions. Further we propose a concept-oriented methodology for interconnecting subject classifications, with the concrete support of a relational analysis of the whole Mathematics Subject Classification through its evolution since 1959. Finally, we recall a very basic method for interconnection provided by coreference in bibliographic records among index elements from different systems, and point out the advantages of establishing the conditions of a more widespread application of such a method. A part of these contents was presented under the title Mathematics Subject Classification and related Classifications in the Digital World at the Eighth International Conference Crimea 2001, "Libraries and Associations in the Transient World: New Technologies and New Forms of Cooperation", Sudak, Ukraine, June 9-17, 2001, in a special session on electronic libraries, electronic publishing and electronic information in science chaired by Bernd Wegner, Editor-in-Chief of Zentralblatt MATH.

0.030834224 = product of:
  0.06166845 = sum of:
    0.03790077 = weight(_text_:library in 88) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03790077 = score(doc=88,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.28758827 = fieldWeight in 88, 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=88)
    0.023767682 = product of:
      0.047535364 = sum of:
        0.047535364 = weight(_text_:22 in 88) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047535364 = score(doc=88,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper presents a study conducted at the University of Colorado at Boulder (CU-Boulder) to assess the extent to which its catalogers were using Classification Web (Class Web), the subscription-based, online cataloging documentation resource provided by the Library of Congress. In addition, this paper will explore assumptions made by management regarding CU-Boulder catalogers' use of the product, possible reasons for the lower-than-expected use, and recommendations for promoting a more efficient and cost-effective use of Class Web at other institutions similar to CU-Boulder.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

Source

Library resources and technical services. 50(2006) no.2, S.129-137

0.028895756 = product of:
  0.057791512 = sum of:
    0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 4869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030628446 = score(doc=4869,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 4869, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4869)
    0.027163066 = product of:
      0.054326132 = sum of:
        0.054326132 = weight(_text_:22 in 4869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054326132 = score(doc=4869,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4869, 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=4869)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This article gives an overview of the design and organisation of DutchESS, a Dutch information subject gateway created as a national collaborative effort of the National Library and a number of academic libraries. The combined centralised and distributed model of DutchESS is discussed, as well as its selection policy, its metadata format, classification scheme and retrieval options. Also some options for future collaboration on an international level are explored

Date

22. 6.2002 19:39:23

0.021540914 = product of:
  0.086163655 = sum of:
    0.086163655 = weight(_text_:digital in 2633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.086163655 = score(doc=2633,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.4358155 = fieldWeight in 2633, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2633)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper examines the differences in the functional requirements of a faceted classification system when used in a conventional print-based environment (where the emphasis is on the browse function of the classification) as compared to its application to digital collections (where the retrieval function is paramount). The use of the second edition of Bliss's Bibliographic Classification (BC2) as a general classification for the physical organization of undergraduate collections in the University of Cambridge is described. The development of an online tool for indexing of digital resources using the Bliss terminologies is also described, and the advantages of facet analysis for data structuring and system syntax within the prototype tool are discussed. The move from the print-based environment to the digital makes different demands an both the content and the syntax of the classification, and while the conceptual structure remains similar, manipulation of the scheme and the process of content description can be markedly different.

0.01865498 = product of:
  0.07461992 = sum of:
    0.07461992 = weight(_text_:digital in 5895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07461992 = score(doc=5895,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.37742734 = fieldWeight in 5895, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5895)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Broughton is one of the key people working on the second edition of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification (BC2). Her article has a brief, informative history of facets, then discusses semantic vs. syntactic relationships, standard facets used by Ranganathan and the Classification Research Group, facet analysis and citation order, and how to build subject indexes out of faceted classifications, all with occasional reference to digital environments and hypertext, but never with any specifics. It concludes by saying of faceted classification that the "capacity which it has to create highly sophisticated structures for the accommodation of complex objects suggests that it is worth investigation as an organizational tool for digital materials, and that the results of such investigation would be knowledge structures of unparalleled utility and elegance." How to build them is left to the reader, but this article provides an excellent starting point. It includes an example that shows how general concepts can be applied to a small set of documents and subjects, and how terms can be adapted to suit the material and users

0.012185382 = product of:
  0.048741527 = sum of:
    0.048741527 = weight(_text_:digital in 2643) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048741527 = score(doc=2643,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.2465345 = fieldWeight in 2643, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2643)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

1. Introduction Web search engines and digital libraries usually expect the users to use search terms that most accurately represent their information needs. Finding the most appropriate search terms to represent an information need is an age old problem in information retrieval. Keyword or phrase search may produce good search results as long as the search terms or phrase(s) match those used by the authors and have been chosen for indexing by the concerned information retrieval system. Since this does not always happen, a large number of false drops are produced by information retrieval systems. The retrieval results become worse in very large systems that deal with millions of records, such as the Web search engines and digital libraries. Vocabulary control tools are used to improve the performance of text retrieval systems. Thesauri, the most common type of vocabulary control tool used in information retrieval, appeared in the late fifties, designed for use with the emerging post-coordinate indexing systems of that time. They are used to exert terminology control in indexing, and to aid in searching by allowing the searcher to select appropriate search terms. A large volume of literature exists describing the design features, and experiments with the use, of thesauri in various types of information retrieval systems (see for example, Furnas et.al., 1987; Bates, 1986, 1998; Milstead, 1997, and Shiri et al., 2002).

0.011485667 = product of:
  0.045942668 = sum of:
    0.045942668 = weight(_text_:library in 831) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045942668 = score(doc=831,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.34860963 = fieldWeight in 831, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=831)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The main object of the paper is to demonstrate in detail the role of classification in information retrieval (IR) and the design of classificatory structures by the application of logical division to all forms of the content of records, subject and imaginative. The natural product of such division is a faceted classification. The latter is seen not as a particular kind of library classification but the only viable form enabling the locating and relating of information to be optimally predictable. A detailed exposition of the practical steps in facet analysis is given, drawing on the experience of the new Bliss Classification (BC2). The continued existence of the library as a highly organized information store is assumed. But, it is argued, it must acknowledge the relevance of the revolution in library classification that has taken place. It considers also how alphabetically arranged subject indexes may utilize controlled use of categorical (generically inclusive) and syntactic relations to produce similarly predictable locating and relating systems for IR.

Source

Library trends. 52(2004) no.3, S.515-540

0.011485667 = product of:
  0.045942668 = sum of:
    0.045942668 = weight(_text_:library in 111) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045942668 = score(doc=111,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.34860963 = fieldWeight in 111, 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=111)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.010770457 = product of:
  0.043081827 = sum of:
    0.043081827 = weight(_text_:digital in 257) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043081827 = score(doc=257,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050121464 = queryNorm
        0.21790776 = fieldWeight in 257, 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=257)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In 2001, information architects and knowledge management specialists charged with designing websites and access to corporate knowledge bases seemingly re-discovered a legacy form of information organization and access: faceted analytico-synthetic theory (FAST). Instrumental in creating new and different ways for people to engage with the digital content of the Web, the members of this group have clearly recognized that faceted approaches have the potential to improve access to information on the web. Some of these practitioners explicitly use the forms and language of FAST, while others seem to mimic the forms implicitly (Adkisson, 2003). The focus of this ongoing research study is two-fold. First, access and organizational structures in a stratified random sample of 200 DMOZ websites were examined for evidence of the use of FAST. Second, in the context of unstructured interviews, the understanding and use of FAST among a group of eighteen practitioners is uncovered. This is a preliminary report of the website component capture and interview phases of this research study. Future work will involve formalizing a set of feature guidelines drawn from the initial phases of this research study. Preliminary observations will be drawn from the first phase of this study.