Search (30 results, page 1 of 2)

0.024145257 = product of:
  0.036217883 = sum of:
    0.014402954 = weight(_text_:to in 1493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014402954 = score(doc=1493,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.17395693 = fieldWeight in 1493, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1493)
    0.02181493 = product of:
      0.04362986 = sum of:
        0.04362986 = weight(_text_:22 in 1493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04362986 = score(doc=1493,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045541126 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1493, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1493)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

A lot of information that is already available on the Web, or retrieved from local information systems and social networks is structured in data silos that are not semantically related. Semantic technologies make it emerge that the use of typed links that directly express their relations are an advantage for every application that can reuse the incorporated knowledge about the data. For this reason, data integration, through reengineering (e.g. triplify), or querying (e.g. D2R) is an important task in order to make information available for everyone. Thus, in order to build a semantic map of the data, we need knowledge about data items itself and the relation between heterogeneous data items. In this paper, we present our work of providing Lexical Linked Data (LLD) through a meta-model that contains all the resources and gives the possibility to retrieve and navigate them from different perspectives. We combine the existing work done on knowledge domains (based on the Information Coding Classification) within the Multilingual Lexical Linked Data Cloud (based on the RDF/OWL EurowordNet and the related integrated lexical resources (MultiWordNet, EuroWordNet, MEMODATA Lexicon, Hamburg Methaphor DB).

Date

22. 9.2014 19:01:18

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

0.020567313 = product of:
  0.06170194 = sum of:
    0.06170194 = product of:
      0.12340388 = sum of:
        0.12340388 = weight(_text_:22 in 1612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12340388 = score(doc=1612,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045541126 = queryNorm
            0.77380234 = fieldWeight in 1612, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=1612)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

DK-Mitteilungen. 22(1978) Nr.5/6, S.13-18

0.020567313 = product of:
  0.06170194 = sum of:
    0.06170194 = product of:
      0.12340388 = sum of:
        0.12340388 = weight(_text_:22 in 1625) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12340388 = score(doc=1625,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045541126 = queryNorm
            0.77380234 = fieldWeight in 1625, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=1625)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Nachrichten für Dokumentation. 26(1975), S.22-25

0.020567313 = product of:
  0.06170194 = sum of:
    0.06170194 = product of:
      0.12340388 = sum of:
        0.12340388 = weight(_text_:22 in 1630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12340388 = score(doc=1630,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045541126 = queryNorm
            0.77380234 = fieldWeight in 1630, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=1630)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

International classification. 8(1981), S.16-22

0.014397118 = product of:
  0.043191355 = sum of:
    0.043191355 = product of:
      0.08638271 = sum of:
        0.08638271 = weight(_text_:22 in 880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08638271 = score(doc=880,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045541126 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 880, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=880)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Pages

S.9-22

0.010283656 = product of:
  0.03085097 = sum of:
    0.03085097 = product of:
      0.06170194 = sum of:
        0.06170194 = weight(_text_:22 in 127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06170194 = score(doc=127,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045541126 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 127, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=127)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Zugleich Dissertation Univ. Düsseldorf. - Rez. in: ZfBB. 22(1975) S.53-57 (H.-A. Koch)

0.010267075 = product of:
  0.030801224 = sum of:
    0.030801224 = weight(_text_:to in 3614) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030801224 = score(doc=3614,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.37201303 = fieldWeight in 3614, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3614)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Research history of the last 70 years highlights various systems for contents assessment and retrieval of scientific literature, such as universal classifications, thesauri, ontologies etc., which have followed developments of their own, notwithstanding a general trend towards interoperability, i.e. either to become instruments for cooperation or to widen their scope to encompass neighbouring fields within their framework. In the case of thesauri and ontologies, the endeavour to upgrade them into a universal system was bound to miscarry. This paper purports to indicate ways to gain from past experience and possibly rally material achievements while updating and promoting the ontologically-based faceted Information Coding Classification as a progressive universal system fit for meeting whatever requirements in the fields of information and science at large.

0.0082269255 = product of:
  0.024680775 = sum of:
    0.024680775 = product of:
      0.04936155 = sum of:
        0.04936155 = weight(_text_:22 in 3726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04936155 = score(doc=3726,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045541126 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3726, 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=3726)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly

0.0077611795 = product of:
  0.023283537 = sum of:
    0.023283537 = weight(_text_:to in 1381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023283537 = score(doc=1381,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.28121543 = fieldWeight in 1381, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1381)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

As an introduction, the circumstances leading to the foundation of the International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO) are outlined and the prerequisites for the formal and conceptual description of the scope of knowledge organization (KO) are laid out, followed by the explanation of the scheme as used in the bibliography of KO. An overview is provided of the tasks and activities of this discipline; thereafter and in conclusion an urgent appeal is made to ISKO and to all active scientific societies with a view to establishing KO as an autonomous scientific discipline within the science of science, as well as an indication is given of urgently required tasks.

0.007201477 = product of:
  0.02160443 = sum of:
    0.02160443 = weight(_text_:to in 4300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02160443 = score(doc=4300,freq=54.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.2609354 = fieldWeight in 4300, product of:
          7.3484693 = tf(freq=54.0), with freq of:
            54.0 = termFreq=54.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4300)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In 2009 ISKO had its 20th anniversary, a time for review and reflection on what might be envisaged to further Knowledge Organization in the forthcoming years. In addition to some proposals set forth at the end of this contribution, ten desiderata appear urgent. A preliminary condition to any other consideration is the recognition of the fundamental difference in the organization of knowledge between the concept (i.e., the unit of knowledge)-the conceptual level-and the word, term or code-the verbal level-and the need for implementing this distinction in theory and practice (Desideratum 1). On this basis, some further proposals are enunciated. The 2nd proposition concerns the surveying of extant classification systems, thesauri, and other means of organizing, ordering, and indexing knowledge; the 3rd proposition envisages the improvement of expert training in Knowledge Organization (KO), also with regard to curricula and professional acknowledgment. Nr.4) refers to the professionalization of the hitherto rather neglected national ISKO secretariats, as well as the international ISKO secretariat. Nr.5) urges a systematic survey of KO-relevant concepts to serve as a model or standard for other subject fields, Nr.6) claims the establishment of KO Institutes, Nr.7) views consultancy to the effect that anybody interested in KO may approach ISKO for help, Nr 8) urges ISKO's promotion of membership and chapters in as many countries as possible, Nr.9) presses for intensification of ISKO's publication activities, and Nr.10) pleads for KO as a scientific discipline on its own.

Content

1. Recognize the units in an order system (classification system, thesaurus, ontology, etc.) as concepts/knowledge units, analyse their essential characteristics, and use these characteristics when creating a Knowledge Order System. 2. Recognize the units in an order system (classification system, thesaurus, ontology, etc.) as concepts/knowledge units, analyse their essential characteristics, and use these characteristics when creating a Knowledge Order System. 3. An ISKO group should elaborate a curriculum for the various KO activities to be published after approval by the ISKO Executive Board (EB). Together with this, the qualifying titles of different professionals (teacher, professor, system designer etc.) should also be discussed by the ISKO EB, adopted and proposed for acknowledgement by official institutions; and, 2) It may be possible for ISKO to establish its own Academy and also take care of teaching with the elaborated curricula. 4. Every national ISKO Chapter and the General Secretariat should make efforts to employ a paid expert for the necessary secretarial work, and seek financial support therefore from national or international organizations, in order to become more professionalised. 5. The ISKO Executive Board should decide to elaborate and publish an order system of all KO-relevant concepts to serve as a model and perhaps sometimes as a standard for similar work in other scientific disciplines and knowledge fields.
6. Establishment of national Knowledge Organization Institutes should be scheduled by national chapters, planned energetically and submitted to corresponding administrative authorities for support. They could be attached to research institutions, e.g., the Max-Planck or Fraunhofer Institutes in Germany or to universities. Their scope and research areas relate to the elaboration of knowledge systems of subject related concepts, according to Desideratum 1, and may be connected to training activities and KOsubject-related research work. 7. ISKO experts should not accept to be impressed by Internet and Computer Science, but should demonstrate their expertise more actively on the public plane. They should tend to take a leading part in the ISKO Secretariats and the KO Institutes, and act as consultants and informants, as well as editors of statistics and other publications. 8. All colleagues trained in the field of classification/indexing and thesauri construction and active in different countries should be identified and approached for membership in ISKO. This would have to be accomplished by the General Secretariat with the collaboration of the experts in the different secretariats of the countries, as soon as they start to work. The more members ISKO will have, the greater will be its reputation and influence. But it will also prove its professionalism by the quality of its products, especially its innovating conceptual order systems to come. 9. ISKO should-especially in view of global expansion-intensify the promotion of knowledge about its own subject area through the publications mentioned here and in further publications as deemed necessary. It should be made clear that, especially in ISKO's own publications, professional subject indexes are a sine qua non. 10. 1) Knowledge Organization, having arisen from librarianship and documentation, the contents of which has many points of contact with numerous application fields, should-although still linked up with its areas of descent-be recognized in the long run as an independent autonomous discipline to be located under the science of science, since only thereby can it fully play its role as an equal partner in all application fields; and, 2) An "at-a-first-glance knowledge order" could be implemented through the Information Coding Classification (ICC), as this system is based on an entirely new approach, namely based on general object areas, thus deviating from discipline-oriented main classes of the current main universal classification systems. It can therefore recoup by simple display on screen the hitherto lost overview of all knowledge areas and fields. On "one look", one perceives 9 object areas subdivided into 9 aspects which break down into 81 subject areas with their 729 subject fields, including further special fields. The synthesis and place of order of all knowledge becomes thus evident at a glance to everybody. Nobody would any longer be irritated by the abundance of singular apparently unrelated knowledge fields or become hesitant in his/her understanding of the world.

0.006789617 = product of:
  0.02036885 = sum of:
    0.02036885 = weight(_text_:to in 5563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02036885 = score(doc=5563,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.24601223 = fieldWeight in 5563, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5563)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Some time ago, some people said classification is dead, we don't need it any more. They probably thought that subject headings could do the job of the necessary subject analysis and shelving of books. However, all of a sudden in 1984 the attitude changed, when an OCLC study of Karen Markey started to show what could be done even with an "outdated system" such as the Dewey Decimal Classification in the computer, once it was visible on a screen to show the helpfulness of a classified library catalogue called an OPAC; classification was brought back into the minds of doubtful librarians and of all those who thought they would not need it any longer. But the problem once phrased: "We are stuck with the two old systems, LCC and DDC" would not find a solution and is still with us today. We know that our systems are outdated but we seem still to be unable to replace them with better ones. What then should one do and advise, knowing that we need something better? Perhaps a new universal ordering system which more adequately represents and mediates the world of our present day knowledge? If we were to develop it from scratch, how would we create it and implement it in such a way that it would be acceptable to the majority of the present intellectual world population?

0.006789617 = product of:
  0.02036885 = sum of:
    0.02036885 = weight(_text_:to in 4824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02036885 = score(doc=4824,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.24601223 = fieldWeight in 4824, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4824)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

General concepts are all those form-categorial concepts which - attached to a specific concept of a classification system or thesaurus - can help to widen, sometimes even in a syntactical sense, the understanding of a case. In some existing universal classification systems such concepts have been named "auxiliaries" or "common isolates" as in the Colon Classification (CC). However, by such auxiliaries, different kinds of such concepts are listed, e.g. concepts of space and time, concepts of races and languages and concepts of kinds of documents, next to them also concepts of kinds of general activities, properties, persons, and institutions. Such latter kinds form part of the nine aspects ruling the facets in the Information Coding Classification (ICC) through the principle of using a Systematiser for the subdivision of subject groups and fields. Based on this principle and using and extending existing systems of such concepts, e.g. which A. Diemer had presented to the German Thesaurus Committee as well as those found in the UDC, in CC and attached to the Subject Heading System of the German National Library, a faceted classification is proposed for critical assessment, necessary improvement and possible later use in classification systems and thesauri.

Source

Classification and ontology: formal approaches and access to knowledge: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar, 19-20 September 2011, The Hague, The Netherlands. Eds.: A. Slavic u. E. Civallero

0.006652439 = product of:
  0.019957317 = sum of:
    0.019957317 = weight(_text_:to in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019957317 = score(doc=5171,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.24104178 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A multitude of library catalogs are now being entered into the Internet. Their differing classification and subject headings systems used for subject access call for a switching system, a black box to facilitate the location of subject fields and their subjects in these systems. The principles on which such a switching system must be built in order to provide the necessary insight, surveyability, reproducebility and ease of concept combinability (e.g. in cases of interdisciplinary subjects) are outlined and compared with the BSO which hance once been established by the FID in order to serve a switching purpose. The advantages of using the Information Coding Classification (ICC) as a switching system in the Internet are demonstrated, likewise the methodology needed to establish the necessary correlation between library classification systems (and if possible also subject heading systems and thesauri) and the ICC. Finally some organizational implications for creating a switching for 6 universal systems in use are described

0.00627198 = product of:
  0.018815938 = sum of:
    0.018815938 = weight(_text_:to in 1618) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018815938 = score(doc=1618,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.22725637 = fieldWeight in 1618, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1618)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Until very recently, classification theory was held to be nothing but an expressed or unconscious knowledge framed in intuitively given reasons for the subdivision and arrangement of any universe. Today, after clarification of the elements of classification systems as well as the basis of concept relationshios it is possible to apply a number of principles in the evaluation of existing systems as well as in the construction of new ones and by this achieving relatively predictable and repeatable results

0.006170194 = product of:
  0.018510582 = sum of:
    0.018510582 = product of:
      0.037021164 = sum of:
        0.037021164 = weight(_text_:22 in 1736) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037021164 = score(doc=1736,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15947726 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045541126 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1736, 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=1736)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 9.2014 19:00:13

0.005761182 = product of:
  0.017283546 = sum of:
    0.017283546 = weight(_text_:to in 2100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017283546 = score(doc=2100,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.20874833 = fieldWeight in 2100, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2100)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The implications of contributions from philosophy of science to classification theory and the construction of a new universal classification system are discussed. Starting from the purposes of universal systems and what has been considered so far to serve as main classes of the six existing major universal systems, the following theories have been treated: Theory of (1) knowledge, (2) knowledge elements and units, (3) systems, (4) the science concept, (5) knowledge fields including criteria for their identification, (6) a logical syntax, (7) an overall structure of object and aspect areas. Concludingly an evaluation was made with special regard to the representability (notation) of such a theory-based universal concept system by computer and in telecommunication. This, as well as the heuristics contained in such a theory-based system facilitate its general applicability

0.005761182 = product of:
  0.017283546 = sum of:
    0.017283546 = weight(_text_:to in 47) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017283546 = score(doc=47,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.20874833 = fieldWeight in 47, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=47)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

For the purpose of establishing compatibility between the major universal classification systems in use, their structure principles were investigated and crucial points of difficulty for this undertaking were looked for, in order to relate the guiding classes, e.g. of the DDC, UDC, LCC, BC, and CC, to the subject groups of the ICC. With the help of a matrix into whose fields all subject groups of the ICC were inserted, it was not difficult at all to enter the notations of the universal classification systems mentioned. However, differences in terms of level of subdivision were found, as well as differences of occurrences. Most, though not all, of the fields of the ICC matrix could be completely filled with the corresponding notations of the other systems. Through this matrix, a first table of some 81 equivalences was established on which further work regarding the next levels of subject fields can be based

0.005761182 = product of:
  0.017283546 = sum of:
    0.017283546 = weight(_text_:to in 2103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017283546 = score(doc=2103,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.20874833 = fieldWeight in 2103, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2103)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

So far terminological work has been mainly directed towards defining very special concepts. The more general ones, e.g. those denoting subject-fields have been neglected with the result that communication on this level has been seriously hampered. There exists a great number of such terms and also a growing trend for the formation of new ones. In the FRG an R&D project was started in 1972 with the collection of names of subject fields, it is intended to assemble their definitions in a dictionary and to build a general concept system by computercomparison of their characteristics as provided by their definitions. The nature of subject-fields is explained, details on the German collection are given as well as some results from a formal analysis of their concepts. It is proposed to initiate similar projects in other linguistic regions as well; this could be done under the auspices of Infoterm. Some application-possibilities for a general concept-system (e. g. a broad system of ordering) are given. The annex displays a scheme of 9 subject areas and about 90 subareas for the sorting of names of subject fields

0.0055436995 = product of:
  0.016631098 = sum of:
    0.016631098 = weight(_text_:to in 2510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016631098 = score(doc=2510,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.20086816 = fieldWeight in 2510, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2510)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Articles included in an issue devoted to part 1 of a 2 part series celebrating people who have been leaders in the field of cataloguing and classification

0.005487982 = product of:
  0.016463947 = sum of:
    0.016463947 = weight(_text_:to in 5549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016463947 = score(doc=5549,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08279609 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045541126 = queryNorm
        0.19884932 = fieldWeight in 5549, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.818051 = idf(docFreq=19512, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5549)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Describes the latest trends in knowledge organization research. Provides a historical background covering the thesaurs period; the impact of Ranganathan's ideas and the foundation of the ISKO. Defines knowledge organization and explains its conceptual framework. Analyses current research from the Knowledge Literature supplement to Knowledge Organization covering automation and universal classification schemes; a universal thesaurus; new conceptual structures for knowledge organization; and the quality of indexing and cataloguing procedures. Recommends close cooperation between terminologies and knowledge organization researchers for facet analysis to progress