Search (87 results, page 1 of 5)

  • × type_ss:"a"
  • × theme_ss:"Klassifikationstheorie: Elemente / Struktur"
  1. Broughton, V.: Faceted classification as a basis for knowledge organization in a digital environment : the Bliss Bibliographic Classification as a model for vocabulary management and the creation of multidimensional knowledge structures (2003) 0.12
    0.11697504 = product of:
      0.15596671 = sum of:
        0.10339639 = weight(_text_:digital in 2631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10339639 = score(doc=2631,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.52297866 = fieldWeight in 2631, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2631)
        0.022971334 = weight(_text_:library in 2631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022971334 = score(doc=2631,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 2631, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2631)
        0.029598987 = product of:
          0.059197973 = sum of:
            0.059197973 = weight(_text_:project in 2631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.059197973 = score(doc=2631,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050121464 = queryNorm
                0.27981415 = fieldWeight in 2631, 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=2631)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.75 = coord(3/4)
    
    Abstract
    The paper examines the way in which classification schemes can be applied to the organization of digital resources. The case is argued for the particular suitability of schemes based an faceted principles for the organization of complex digital objects. Details are given of a co-operative project between the School of Library Archive & Information Studies, University College London, and the United Kingdom Higher Education gateways Arts and Humanities Data Service and Humbul, in which a faceted knowledge structure is being developed for the indexing and display of digital materials within a new combined humanities portal.
  2. Ullah, A.; Khusro, S.; Ullah, I.: Bibliographic classification in the digital age : current trends & future directions (2017) 0.08
    0.07926495 = product of:
      0.1585299 = sum of:
        0.120629124 = weight(_text_:digital in 5717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.120629124 = score(doc=5717,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.61014175 = fieldWeight in 5717, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5717)
        0.03790077 = weight(_text_:library in 5717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03790077 = score(doc=5717,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.28758827 = fieldWeight in 5717, 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=5717)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    Bibliographic classification is among the core activities of Library & Information Science that brings order and proper management to the holdings of a library. Compared to printed media, digital collections present numerous challenges regarding their preservation, curation, organization and resource discovery & access. Therefore, true native perspective is needed to be adopted for bibliographic classification in digital environments. In this research article, we have investigated and reported different approaches to bibliographic classification of digital collections. The article also contributes two evaluation frameworks that evaluate the existing classification schemes and systems. The article presents a bird's-eye view for researchers in reaching a generalized and holistic approach towards bibliographic classification research, where new research avenues have been identified.
  3. Grove, A.: Taxonomy (2009) 0.04
    0.043557227 = product of:
      0.08711445 = sum of:
        0.060314562 = weight(_text_:digital in 3846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060314562 = score(doc=3846,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.30507088 = fieldWeight in 3846, 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=3846)
        0.026799891 = weight(_text_:library in 3846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026799891 = score(doc=3846,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 3846, 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=3846)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Content
    Digital unter: http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/E-ELIS3-120044405. Vgl.: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/book/10.1081/E-ELIS3.
    Source
    Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates
  4. Beghtol, C.: Classification theory (2010) 0.04
    0.042092286 = product of:
      0.08418457 = sum of:
        0.051698197 = weight(_text_:digital in 3761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051698197 = score(doc=3761,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.26148933 = fieldWeight in 3761, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3761)
        0.032486375 = weight(_text_:library in 3761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032486375 = score(doc=3761,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.24650425 = fieldWeight in 3761, 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=3761)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    In the library and information sciences, classification theories are used primarily for knowledge organization, either in a manual or in a machine environment. In this context, classification theories have usually been developed initially as a support for specific knowledge organization classification systems, although the theories and the systems have influenced and re-influenced each other in particular ways throughout their lives. This entry discusses theories for knowledge organization classifications using examples from a number of classification systems, but no one system is discussed at length. Instead, the entry is organized into sections that deal first with classificatory issues in general and then with theories of content, theories of structure, and theories of notation for knowledge organization classifications.
    Content
    Digital unter: http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/E-ELIS3-120043230. Vgl.: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/book/10.1081/E-ELIS3.
    Source
    Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates
  5. Winske, E.: ¬The development and structure of an urban, regional, and local documents classification scheme (1996) 0.04
    0.03509323 = product of:
      0.07018646 = sum of:
        0.04641878 = weight(_text_:library in 7241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04641878 = score(doc=7241,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.3522223 = fieldWeight in 7241, 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=7241)
        0.023767682 = product of:
          0.047535364 = sum of:
            0.047535364 = weight(_text_:22 in 7241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.047535364 = score(doc=7241,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050121464 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 7241, 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=7241)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    Discusses the reasons for the decision, taken at Florida International University Library to develop an in house classification system for their local documents collections. Reviews the structures of existing classification systems, noting their strengths and weaknesses in relation to the development of an in house system and describes the 5 components of the new system; geography, subject categories, extensions for population group and/or function, extensions for type of publication, and title/series designator
    Footnote
    Paper presented at conference on 'Local documents, a new classification scheme' at the Research Caucus of the Florida Library Association Annual Conference, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 22 Apr 95
    Source
    Journal of educational media and library sciences. 34(1996) no.1, S.19-34
  6. Olson, H.; Nielsen, J.; Dippie, S.R.: Encyclopaedist rivalry, classificatory commonality, illusory universality (2003) 0.03
    0.031185828 = product of:
      0.062371656 = sum of:
        0.034465462 = weight(_text_:digital in 2761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034465462 = score(doc=2761,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.17432621 = fieldWeight in 2761, 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=2761)
        0.027906192 = product of:
          0.055812385 = sum of:
            0.055812385 = weight(_text_:project in 2761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.055812385 = score(doc=2761,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.21156175 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050121464 = queryNorm
                0.26381132 = fieldWeight in 2761, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  4.220981 = idf(docFreq=1764, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2761)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    This paper describes the cultural construction of classification as exemplified by the French Encyclopòudists, Jean d'Alembert and Denis Diderot, and the encyclopaedism of Samuel Taylor Coleridge analysing original texts digitized and encoded using XML and an adaptation of TEI. 1. Introduction This paper, focusing an encyclopaedism, is part of a larger study exploring the cultural construction of classification. The larger study explores possible foundations for bias in the structure of classifications with a view to more equitable practice. Bias in classification has been documented relative to race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality and other factors. Analyses and proposed solutions have addressed only acute biases in particular systems, not the systems themselves. The project tentatively identifies the systemic roots of bias are culturally specific and reflected in the structure of conventional classifcatory practices. A wide range of western cultural texts from classic Greek philosophy to twentieth-century ethnography is being analysed. The consistency with which certain presumptions are revealed, no matter how different the philosophical and social views of the authors, indicates their ubiquity in western thought, though it is not mirrored in many other cultures. We hope that an understanding of these fundamental cultural presumptions will make space for development of alternative approaches to knowledge organization that can work alongside conventional methods. This paper describes an example of the first phase of the project, which is a deconstruction developed from relevant texts. In the context of encyclopaedism the key texts used in this paper are Jean d'Alembert's Preliminary Discourse to the Encyclopedie, selections from Denis Diderot's contributions to the Encyclopedie, and Samuel Taylor Coleridge's Treatise an Method and Prospectus of the Encyclopedia Metropolitana. We are analysing these texts in digital form using Extensible Markup Language (XML) implemented via a document type definition (DTD) created for the purpose including elements of the Text Encoding Initiative (TEI). We will first explain the encoding methodology; then define the differences between the French Encyclopaedists and the English Coleridge; deconstruct these differences by allowing the commonalities between the texts to emerge; and, finally, examine their cultural specificity.
  7. Broughton, V.: ¬The need for a faceted classification as the basis of all methods of information retrieval (2006) 0.03
    0.031112304 = product of:
      0.062224608 = sum of:
        0.043081827 = weight(_text_:digital in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043081827 = score(doc=2874,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.21790776 = fieldWeight in 2874, 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=2874)
        0.01914278 = weight(_text_:library in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01914278 = score(doc=2874,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 2874, 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=2874)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - The aim of this article is to estimate the impact of faceted classification and the faceted analytical method on the development of various information retrieval tools over the latter part of the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Design/methodology/approach - The article presents an examination of various subject access tools intended for retrieval of both print and digital materials to determine whether they exhibit features of faceted systems. Some attention is paid to use of the faceted approach as a means of structuring information on commercial web sites. The secondary and research literature is also surveyed for commentary on and evaluation of facet analysis as a basis for the building of vocabulary and conceptual tools. Findings - The study finds that faceted systems are now very common, with a major increase in their use over the last 15 years. Most LIS subject indexing tools (classifications, subject heading lists and thesauri) now demonstrate features of facet analysis to a greater or lesser degree. A faceted approach is frequently taken to the presentation of product information on commercial web sites, and there is an independent strand of theory and documentation related to this application. There is some significant research on semi-automatic indexing and retrieval (query expansion and query formulation) using facet analytical techniques. Originality/value - This article provides an overview of an important conceptual approach to information retrieval, and compares different understandings and applications of this methodology.
    Footnote
    Beitrag in einem Themenheft: UK library & information schools: UCL SLAIS.
  8. Lin, W.-Y.C.: ¬The concept and applications of faceted classifications (2006) 0.03
    0.028895756 = product of:
      0.057791512 = sum of:
        0.030628446 = weight(_text_:library in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030628446 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.23240642 = fieldWeight in 5083, 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=5083)
        0.027163066 = product of:
          0.054326132 = sum of:
            0.054326132 = weight(_text_:22 in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.054326132 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050121464 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5083, 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=5083)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Date
    27. 5.2007 22:19:35
    Source
    Journal of educational media and library sciences. 47(2006) no.2, S.153-171
  9. Olson, H.A.: Sameness and difference : a cultural foundation of classification (2001) 0.03
    0.025283787 = product of:
      0.050567575 = sum of:
        0.026799891 = weight(_text_:library in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026799891 = score(doc=166,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 166, 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=166)
        0.023767682 = product of:
          0.047535364 = sum of:
            0.047535364 = weight(_text_:22 in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.047535364 = score(doc=166,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050121464 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 166, 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=166)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Source
    Library resources and technical services. 45(2001) no.3, S.115-122
  10. Bragato Barros, T.H.; Libonati Gomes, D.: Classification and knowledge organization systems : ontologies and archival classification (2018) 0.02
    0.024370763 = product of:
      0.097483054 = sum of:
        0.097483054 = weight(_text_:digital in 4715) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.097483054 = score(doc=4715,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.493069 = fieldWeight in 4715, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4715)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Source
    Challenges and opportunities for knowledge organization in the digital age: proceedings of the Fifteenth International ISKO Conference, 9-11 July 2018, Porto, Portugal / organized by: International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO Spain and Portugal Chapter, University of Porto - Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Research Centre in Communication, Information and Digital Culture (CIC.digital) - Porto. Eds.: F. Ribeiro u. M.E. Cerveira
  11. Gnoli, C.; Ledl, A.; Park, Z.; Trzmielewski, M.: Phenomenon-based vs. disciplinary classification : possibilities for evaluating and for mapping (2018) 0.02
    0.024370763 = product of:
      0.097483054 = sum of:
        0.097483054 = weight(_text_:digital in 4804) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.097483054 = score(doc=4804,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.493069 = fieldWeight in 4804, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4804)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Source
    Challenges and opportunities for knowledge organization in the digital age: proceedings of the Fifteenth International ISKO Conference, 9-11 July 2018, Porto, Portugal / organized by: International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO Spain and Portugal Chapter, University of Porto - Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Research Centre in Communication, Information and Digital Culture (CIC.digital) - Porto. Eds.: F. Ribeiro u. M.E. Cerveira
  12. Kwasnik, B.H.: ¬The role of classification in knowledge representation (1999) 0.02
    0.021671817 = product of:
      0.043343633 = sum of:
        0.022971334 = weight(_text_:library in 2464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022971334 = score(doc=2464,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 2464, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2464)
        0.0203723 = product of:
          0.0407446 = sum of:
            0.0407446 = weight(_text_:22 in 2464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0407446 = score(doc=2464,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050121464 = 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)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Source
    Library trends. 48(1999) no.1, S.22-47
  13. Malla, N.: Classification of knowledge : a study in the foundations of library science (1991) 0.02
    0.018950384 = product of:
      0.07580154 = sum of:
        0.07580154 = weight(_text_:library in 3004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07580154 = score(doc=3004,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.57517654 = fieldWeight in 3004, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3004)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Source
    Indian journal of library studies. 2(1991) no.2, S.163-168
  14. Broughton, V.: Faceted classification as a basis for knowledge organization in a digital environment : the Bliss Bibliographic Classification as a model for vocabulary management and the creation of multi-dimensional knowledge structures (2001) 0.02
    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
  15. Koshman, S.: Categorization and classification revisited : a review of concept in library science and cognitive psychology (1993) 0.02
    0.016578136 = product of:
      0.066312544 = sum of:
        0.066312544 = weight(_text_:library in 8349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.066312544 = score(doc=8349,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.5031747 = fieldWeight in 8349, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=8349)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Reviews the basic concepts associated with categorization and classification in order to examine the cognitive psychology and library science perspectives toward these processes, to discover if a theoretical affinity exists and to discuss potential applications of cognitive categorization theory to the field of library science
  16. Neelameghan, A.: Classification, theory of (1971) 0.02
    0.015314223 = product of:
      0.061256893 = sum of:
        0.061256893 = weight(_text_:library in 1988) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061256893 = score(doc=1988,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.46481284 = fieldWeight in 1988, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1988)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Source
    Encyclopedia of library and information science. Vol.5
  17. Furner, J.; Dunbar, A.W.: ¬The treatment of topics relating to people of mixed race in bibliographic classification schemes : a critical race-theoretic approach (2004) 0.02
    0.015078641 = product of:
      0.060314562 = sum of:
        0.060314562 = weight(_text_:digital in 2640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060314562 = score(doc=2640,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19770671 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.944552 = idf(docFreq=2326, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.30507088 = fieldWeight in 2640, 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=2640)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    The classification of documents about topics relating to people of mixed race is problematic, partly because of the obscurity of racial categorization in general, and partly because of the limitations and inherent biases of bibliographic classification schemes designed primarily for usage in non-digital environments. Critical race theory is an approach that may prove useful in deterrnining how classification systems such as the Dewey Decimal Classification should most appropriately be stuctured.
  18. Kumar, K.: Distinctive contribution of Ranganathan to library classification (1992) 0.01
    0.014981594 = product of:
      0.059926376 = sum of:
        0.059926376 = weight(_text_:library in 6991) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059926376 = score(doc=6991,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.45471698 = fieldWeight in 6991, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6991)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
    
    Abstract
    Stresses that S.R. Ranganathan was truly a great scholar, who made rich contribution to different aspects of library and information science, but is better known for his work in the field of library classification. discusses his distinctive contributions to classification such as normative principles, 3 plane model of work, freely faceted classification (involving facet analysis and the synthetic principle), postulational approach, fundamental categories and certain notational devices like the sector device, group notation device, emptying digit device and seminal mnemonic device. Regards these as seminal ideas forming the basis of his theory of library classification. Considers 7th ed. of the Colon Classification as the best example of the application of theses ideas
    Source
    Journal of library and information science. 17(1992) no.2, S.115-127
  19. Qin, J.: Evolving paradigms of knowledge representation and organization : a comparative study of classification, XML/DTD and ontology (2003) 0.01
    0.014447878 = product of:
      0.028895756 = sum of:
        0.015314223 = weight(_text_:library in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015314223 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.11620321 = fieldWeight in 2763, 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=2763)
        0.013581533 = product of:
          0.027163066 = sum of:
            0.027163066 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.027163066 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050121464 = queryNorm
                0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    The different points of views an knowledge representation and organization from various research communities reflect underlying philosophies and paradigms in these communities. This paper reviews differences and relations in knowledge representation and organization and generalizes four paradigms-integrative and disintegrative pragmatism and integrative and disintegrative epistemologism. Examples such as classification, XML schemas, and ontologies are compared based an how they specify concepts, build data models, and encode knowledge organization structures. 1. Introduction Knowledge representation (KR) is a term that several research communities use to refer to somewhat different aspects of the same research area. The artificial intelligence (AI) community considers KR as simply "something to do with writing down, in some language or communications medium, descriptions or pictures that correspond in some salient way to the world or a state of the world" (Duce & Ringland, 1988, p. 3). It emphasizes the ways in which knowledge can be encoded in a computer program (Bench-Capon, 1990). For the library and information science (LIS) community, KR is literally the synonym of knowledge organization, i.e., KR is referred to as the process of organizing knowledge into classifications, thesauri, or subject heading lists. KR has another meaning in LIS: it "encompasses every type and method of indexing, abstracting, cataloguing, classification, records management, bibliography and the creation of textual or bibliographic databases for information retrieval" (Anderson, 1996, p. 336). Adding the social dimension to knowledge organization, Hjoerland (1997) states that knowledge is a part of human activities and tied to the division of labor in society, which should be the primary organization of knowledge. Knowledge organization in LIS is secondary or derived, because knowledge is organized in learned institutions and publications. These different points of views an KR suggest that an essential difference in the understanding of KR between both AI and LIS lies in the source of representationwhether KR targets human activities or derivatives (knowledge produced) from human activities. This difference also decides their difference in purpose-in AI KR is mainly computer-application oriented or pragmatic and the result of representation is used to support decisions an human activities, while in LIS KR is conceptually oriented or abstract and the result of representation is used for access to derivatives from human activities.
    Date
    12. 9.2004 17:22:35
  20. Wang, Z.; Chaudhry, A.S.; Khoo, C.S.G.: Using classification schemes and thesauri to build an organizational taxonomy for organizing content and aiding navigation (2008) 0.01
    0.014447878 = product of:
      0.028895756 = sum of:
        0.015314223 = weight(_text_:library in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015314223 = score(doc=2346,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1317883 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050121464 = queryNorm
            0.11620321 = fieldWeight in 2346, 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=2346)
        0.013581533 = product of:
          0.027163066 = sum of:
            0.027163066 = weight(_text_:22 in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.027163066 = score(doc=2346,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17551683 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.050121464 = queryNorm
                0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2346, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2346)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - Potential and benefits of classification schemes and thesauri in building organizational taxonomies cannot be fully utilized by organizations. Empirical data of building an organizational taxonomy by the top-down approach of using classification schemes and thesauri appear to be lacking. The paper seeks to make a contribution in this regard. Design/methodology/approach - A case study of building an organizational taxonomy was conducted in the information studies domain for the Division of Information Studies at Nanyang Technology University, Singapore. The taxonomy was built by using the Dewey Decimal Classification, the Information Science Taxonomy, two information systems taxonomies, and three thesauri (ASIS&T, LISA, and ERIC). Findings - Classification schemes and thesauri were found to be helpful in creating the structure and categories related to the subject facet of the taxonomy, but organizational community sources had to be consulted and several methods had to be employed. The organizational activities and stakeholders' needs had to be identified to determine the objectives, facets, and the subject coverage of the taxonomy. Main categories were determined by identifying the stakeholders' interests and consulting organizational community sources and domain taxonomies. Category terms were selected from terminologies of classification schemes, domain taxonomies, and thesauri against the stakeholders' interests. Hierarchical structures of the main categories were constructed in line with the stakeholders' perspectives and the navigational role taking advantage of structures/term relationships from classification schemes and thesauri. Categories were determined in line with the concepts and the hierarchical levels. Format of categories were uniformed according to a commonly used standard. The consistency principle was employed to make the taxonomy structure and categories neater. Validation of the draft taxonomy through consultations with the stakeholders further refined the taxonomy. Originality/value - No similar study could be traced in the literature. The steps and methods used in the taxonomy development, and the information studies taxonomy itself, will be helpful for library and information schools and other similar organizations in their effort to develop taxonomies for organizing content and aiding navigation on organizational sites.
    Date
    7.11.2008 15:22:04

Languages

  • e 77
  • f 3
  • ja 3
  • d 2
  • chi 1
  • i 1
  • More… Less…