Search (12 results, page 1 of 1)

0.02180752 = product of:
  0.06542256 = sum of:
    0.06542256 = weight(_text_:reference in 5559) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06542256 = score(doc=5559,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.205834 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050593734 = queryNorm
        0.31784135 = fieldWeight in 5559, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5559)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Scrutinizing the ways in which early printed reference works were designed is a way of bringing typography and book history into the domain of library and information science. The core subject of this discipline is the concept of user-oriented organization of knowledge; it has a close connection to information-seeking behavior and retrieval. By studying the typographic arrangement of knowledge in early printed reference works, one can approach the history of the storage, organization, and retrieval of scientific information. The article discusses the typographic "architecture" of the dictionaries published by the Antwerp printer Christophe Plantin and, more specifically, the three dictionaries of the Dutch language compiled by Plantin's learned proofreader Cornelis Kiliaan (ca. 1530-1607). Kiliaan was one of the first authors to introduce etymology and comparative linguistics into his dictionaries. By analyzing the typographic macrostructures and microstructures of his works, it is possible to discover the lines along which they developed-in the words of Paul Valéry-into machines à savoir. The article also compares Plantin's dictionaries with the international benchmark for lexicographic publishing in the Renaissance world, viz. the translation dictionaries compiled and printed by the Parisian publisher Robert Estienne.

0.018504292 = product of:
  0.055512875 = sum of:
    0.055512875 = weight(_text_:reference in 3434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055512875 = score(doc=3434,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.205834 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050593734 = queryNorm
        0.2696973 = fieldWeight in 3434, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3434)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article explores how linguistics has influenced information retrieval (IR) and attempts to explain the impact of linguistics through an analysis of internal developments in information science generally, and IR in particular. It notes that information science/IR has been evolving from a case science into a fully fledged, "disciplined"/disciplinary science. The article establishes correspondences between linguistics and information science/IR using the three established IR paradigms-physical, cognitive, and computational-as a frame of reference. The current relationship between information science/IR and linguistics is elucidated through discussion of some recent information science publications dealing with linguistic topics and a novel technique, "keyword collocation analysis," is introduced. Insights from interdisciplinarity research and case theory are also discussed. It is demonstrated that the three stages of interdisciplinarity, namely multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity (in the narrow sense), and transdisciplinarity, can be linked to different phases of the information science/IR-linguistics relationship and connected to different ways of using linguistic theory in information science and IR.

0.017856948 = product of:
  0.053570844 = sum of:
    0.053570844 = product of:
      0.16071253 = sum of:
        0.16071253 = weight(_text_:3a in 7394) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16071253 = score(doc=7394,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.42893425 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 7394, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=7394)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Ergebnis einer Umfrage aus dem Frühjahr 1993. A. Wissenschaftliche Bibliotheken: Versandt wurde der Fragebogen an die Mitglieder der Sektion IV des DBV. Fragen: (1a) Um welchen Bestand handelt es sich, der sachlich erschlossen wird? (1b) Wie groß ist dieser Bestand? (1c) Wird dieser Bestand vollständig oder nur in Auswahl (einzelne Fächer, Lehrbücher, Dissertationen o.ä.) sachlich erschlossen? (1d) Seit wann bestehen die jetzigen Sachkataloge? (2) Auf welche Art wird der Bestand zur Zeit sachlich erschlossen? (3a) Welche Klassifikation wird angewendet? (3b) Gibt es alphabetisches SyK-Register bzw. einen Zugriff auf die Klassenbeschreibungen? (3c) Gibt es ergänzende Schlüssel für die Aspekte Ort, Zeit, Form? (4) Falls Sie einen SWK führen (a) nach welchem Regelwerk? (b) Gibt es ein genormtes Vokabular oder einen Thesaurus (ggf. nur für bestimmte Fächer)? (5) In welcher Form existieren die Sachkataloge? (6) Ist die Bibliothek an einer kooperativen Sacherschließung, z.B. in einem Verbund beteiligt? [Nein: 79%] (7) Nutzen Sie Fremdleistungen bei der Sacherschließung? [Ja: 46%] (8) Welche sachlichen Suchmöglichkeiten gibt es für Benutzer? (9) Sind zukünftige Veränderungen bei der Sacherschließung geplant? [Ja: 73%]. - B. Öffentliche Bibliotheken: Die Umfrage richtete sich an alle ÖBs der Sektionen I, II und III des DBV. Fragen: (1) Welche Sachkataloge führen Sie? (2) Welche Klassifikationen (Systematiken) liegen dem SyK zugrunde? [ASB: 242; KAB: 333; SfB: 4 (???); SSD: 11; Berliner: 18] (3) Führen Sie ein eigenes Schlagwort-Register zum SyK bzw. zur Klassifikation (Systematik)? (4) Führen Sie den SWK nach ...? [RSWK: 132 (= ca. 60%) anderen Regeln: 93] (5) Seit wann bestehen die jetzigen Sachkataloge? (6) In welcher Form existiern die Sachkataloge? (7) In welchem Umfang wird der Bestand erschlossen? (8) Welche Signaturen verwenden Sie? (9) Ist die Bibliothek an einer kooperativen Sacherschließung, z.B. einem Verbund, beteiligt? [Nein: 96%] (10) Nutzen Sie Fremdleistungen bei der Sacherschließung? [Ja: 70%] (11) Woher beziehen Sie diese Fremdleistungen? (12) Verfügen Sie über ein Online-Katalogsystem mit OPAC? [Ja: 78; Nein: 614] (13) Sind zukünftig Veränderungen bei der Sacherschließung geplant? [Nein: 458; Ja: 237]; RESÜMEE für ÖB: "(i) Einführung von EDV-Katalogen bleibt auch in den 90er Jahren ein Thema, (ii) Der Aufbau von SWK wird in vielen Bibliotheken in Angriff genommen, dabei spielt die Fremddatenübernahme eine entscheidende Rolle, (iii) RSWK werden zunehmend angewandt, Nutzung der SWD auch für andere Regeln wirkt normierend, (iv) Große Bewegung auf dem 'Systematik-Markt' ist in absehbarer Zeit nicht zu erwarten, (v) Für kleinere Bibliotheken wird der Zettelkatalog auf absehbare Zeit noch die herrschende Katalogform sein, (vi) Der erhebliche Nachholbedarf in den neuen Bundesländern wird nur in einem größeren Zeitraum zu leisten sein. ??? SPEZIALBIBIOTHEKEN ???

0.013709504 = product of:
  0.041128512 = sum of:
    0.041128512 = product of:
      0.082257025 = sum of:
        0.082257025 = weight(_text_:22 in 6041) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.082257025 = score(doc=6041,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17717063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6041, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6041)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Series

Kölner Arbeiten zum Bibliotheks- und Dokumentationswesen; H.22

0.01079417 = product of:
  0.03238251 = sum of:
    0.03238251 = weight(_text_:reference in 3625) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03238251 = score(doc=3625,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.205834 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050593734 = queryNorm
        0.15732343 = fieldWeight in 3625, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3625)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The publication in 1876 of Rules for a Printed Catalogue by Charies A. Cutter (1837-1903) was a landmark in the literature of library science. This code provided the basis for all subsequent codes of descriptive cataloging and catapulted the dictionary catalog into the position of being the predominant form of catalog in American libraries in years to come. Cutter's rules for subject entry were the first and, in essence, still the only codification of the alphabetical subject catalog. These Rules represented the culmination of many years' experience in compiling the dictionary catalog of the Boston Athenaeum (published in 18741882) during Cutter's tenure as its librarian from 1869 to 1893. Prior to the advent of the dictionary catalog, the popular method for organizing subject entries in a catalog was the classified arrangement, in the form of either the classed catalog (usually based an a particular classification scheme) or the alphabetico-classed catalog, in which the primary objective was subject collocation. Subject entries were arranged systematically and logically according to their subject relationships. In the alphabetical subject arrangement in the dictionary catalog, an the other hand, the primary objective is what Cutter calls the "facility of reference"; in other words, subjects can be located quickly in the catalog because they are listed directly under their specific names in an alphabetical order. Unlike the classed catalog which requires an accompanying index, the alphabetical subject catalog combines the functions of the subject entries and index in one alphabetical sequence, even though at the expense of subject collocation.

0.00913967 = product of:
  0.02741901 = sum of:
    0.02741901 = product of:
      0.05483802 = sum of:
        0.05483802 = weight(_text_:22 in 6607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05483802 = score(doc=6607,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17717063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 6607, 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=6607)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Probleme des Wiederaufbaus im wissenschaftlichen Bibliothekswesen: aus d. Verhandlungen des 1. Bibliothekartagung der britischen Zone in Hamburg vom 22.-24.10.1946

0.00913967 = product of:
  0.02741901 = sum of:
    0.02741901 = product of:
      0.05483802 = sum of:
        0.05483802 = weight(_text_:22 in 2521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05483802 = score(doc=2521,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17717063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2521, 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=2521)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 3.2008 13:33:51

0.00913967 = product of:
  0.02741901 = sum of:
    0.02741901 = product of:
      0.05483802 = sum of:
        0.05483802 = weight(_text_:22 in 1432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05483802 = score(doc=1432,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17717063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1432, 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=1432)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 8.2016 15:58:46

0.007997211 = product of:
  0.023991633 = sum of:
    0.023991633 = product of:
      0.047983266 = sum of:
        0.047983266 = weight(_text_:22 in 3363) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047983266 = score(doc=3363,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17717063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3363, 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=3363)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 2.2013 12:10:07

0.005712294 = product of:
  0.017136881 = sum of:
    0.017136881 = product of:
      0.034273762 = sum of:
        0.034273762 = weight(_text_:22 in 3074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034273762 = score(doc=3074,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17717063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3074, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3074)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 8.2016 16:06:54

0.004569835 = product of:
  0.013709505 = sum of:
    0.013709505 = product of:
      0.02741901 = sum of:
        0.02741901 = weight(_text_:22 in 3624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02741901 = score(doc=3624,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17717063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3624, 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=3624)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Original in: Pettee, J.: The history and theory of the alphabetical subject approach to books. New York: Wilson 1946. S.22-25.

0.004567303 = product of:
  0.013701909 = sum of:
    0.013701909 = product of:
      0.027403818 = sum of:
        0.027403818 = weight(_text_:database in 2228) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027403818 = score(doc=2228,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20452234 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.13398936 = fieldWeight in 2228, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2228)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

In Information and Intrigue Colin Burke tells the story of one man's plan to revolutionize the world's science information systems and how science itself became enmeshed with ideology and the institutions of modern liberalism. In the 1890s, the idealistic American Herbert Haviland Field established the Concilium Bibliographicum, a Switzerland-based science information service that sent millions of index cards to American and European scientists. Field's radical new idea was to index major ideas rather than books or documents. In his struggle to create and maintain his system, Field became entangled with nationalistic struggles over the control of science information, the new system of American philanthropy (powered by millionaires), the politics of an emerging American professional science, and in the efforts of another information visionary, Paul Otlet, to create a pre-digital worldwide database for all subjects. World War I shuttered the Concilium, and postwar efforts to revive it failed. Field himself died in the influenza epidemic of 1918. Burke carries the story into the next generation, however, describing the astonishingly varied career of Field's son, Noel, who became a diplomat, an information source for Soviet intelligence (as was his friend Alger Hiss), a secret World War II informant for Allen Dulles, and a prisoner of Stalin. Along the way, Burke touches on a range of topics, including the new entrepreneurial university, Soviet espionage in America, and further efforts to classify knowledge.