Search (51 results, page 3 of 3)

0.0069998526 = product of:
  0.013999705 = sum of:
    0.013999705 = product of:
      0.02799941 = sum of:
        0.02799941 = weight(_text_:library in 3631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02799941 = score(doc=3631,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052364815 = queryNorm
            0.20335563 = fieldWeight in 3631, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3631)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Among the theorists in the field of subject analysis in the twentieth century, none has been more influential than S. R. Ranganathan (1892-1972) of India, a mathematician by training who turned to librarianship and made some of the most far-reaching contributions to the theory of librarianship in general and subject analysis in particular. Dissatisfied with both the Dewey Decimal Classification and the Universal Decimal Classification, Ranganathan set out to develop his own system. His Colon Classification was first published in 1933 and went through six editions; the seventh edition was in progress when Ranganathan died in 1972. In the course of developing the Colon Classification, Ranganathan formulated a body of classification theory which was published in numerous writings, of which the best known are Elements of Library Classification (1945; 3rd ed., 1962) and Prolegomena to Library Classification (1967). Among the principles Ranganathan established, the most powerful and influential are those relating to facet analysis. Ranganathan demonstrated that facet analysis (breaking down subjects into their component parts) and synthesis (recombining these parts to fit the documents) provide the most viable approach to representing the contents of documents. Although the idea and use of facets, though not always called by that name, have been present for a long time (for instance, in the Dewey Decimal Classification and Charles A. Cutter's Expansive Classification), Ranganathan was the person who systematized the ideas and established principles for them. For his Colon Classification, Ranganathan identified five fundamental categories: Personality (P), Material (M), Energy (E), Space (S) and Time (T) and the citation order PMEST based an the idea of decreasing concreteness.
The Colon Classification has not been widely adopted; however, the theory of facet analysis and synthesis Ranganathan developed has proved to be most influential. Although many theorists of subject analysis do not totally agree with his fundamental categories or citation order, Ranganathan's concept of facet analysis and synthesis has provided a viable method and a framework for approaching subject analysis and has become the foundation of subject analysis in the twentieth century. In this sense, his theory laid the groundwork for later investigations and inquiries into the nature of subject and classificatory categories and citation order. His influence is felt in all modern classification schemes and indexing systems. This is attested to by the citations to his ideas and works in numerous papers included in this collection and by the fact that other modern classification systems such as the Dewey Decimal Classification and the Bliss Bibliographic Classification have become increasingly faceted in recent editions. The following chapter from Elements of Library Classification represents one of Ranganathan's many expositions of facet analysis and fundamental categories. It is chosen because of its clarity of expression and comprehensibility (many readers find the majority of his writings difficult to understand).

Footnote

Original in: Ranganathan, S.R.: Elements of library classification. 3rd ed. Bombay: Asia Publishing House 1962. S.82-89

0.0069280574 = product of:
  0.013856115 = sum of:
    0.013856115 = product of:
      0.02771223 = sum of:
        0.02771223 = weight(_text_:library in 3628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02771223 = score(doc=3628,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052364815 = queryNorm
            0.20126988 = fieldWeight in 3628, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3628)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

To those outside the field of library science, the name Melvil Dewey (1851-1931) is virtually synonymous with library classification. To those in the field, Dewey has been recognized as the premier classification maker. His enormously successful system (i.e., successful in terms of the wide adoption of the system around the world for over one hundred years) has now undergone nineteen editions. The Dewey Decimal Classification has been translated into more than twenty languages and is the most widely adopted classification scheme in the world. Even in its earliest manifestations, the Dewey Decimal Classification contained features that anticipated modern classification theory. Among these are the use of mnemonics and the commonly applied standard subdivisions, later called "common isolates" by S. R. Ranganathan (q.v.), which are the mainstays of facet analysis and synthesis. The device of standard subdivisions is an indication of the recognition of common aspects that pervade all subjects. The use of mnemonics, whereby recurring concepts in the scheme are represented by the same notation, for example, geographic concepts and language concepts, eased the transition of the Dewey Decimal Classification from a largely enumerative system to an increasingly faceted one. Another significant feature of the Dewey Decimal Classification is the use of the hierarchical notation based an the arabic numeral system. To a large extent, this feature accounts for the wide use and success of the system in the world across language barriers. With the prospect of increasing online information retrieval, the hierarchical notation will have a significant impact an the effectiveness of the Dewey Decimal Classification as an online retrieval tool. Because the notation is hierarchical, for example, with increasing digits in a number representing narrower subjects and decreasing digits indicating broader subjects, the Dewey Decimal Classification is particularly useful in generic searches for broadening or narrowing search results. In the preface to the second edition of his Decimal Classification Dewey explained the features of his "new" system. The excerpt below presents his ideas and theory concerning the rational basis of his classification, the standard subdivisions, the hierarchical notation based an decimal numbers, the use of mnemonics, the relative index, and relative location. It also reflects Dewey's lifelong interest in simplified spelling.

Footnote

Original in: Decimal Classification and Relativ Index for Arranging, Cataloging, and Indexing Public and Private Libraries and for Pamflets, Clippings, Notes, Scrap Books, Index rerums, etc. 2nd, rev. and greatly enlarged ed. Boston: Library Bureau 1885

0.0059998734 = product of:
  0.011999747 = sum of:
    0.011999747 = product of:
      0.023999494 = sum of:
        0.023999494 = weight(_text_:library in 7646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023999494 = score(doc=7646,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052364815 = queryNorm
            0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 7646, 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=7646)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

KUMAR, P.S.G.: Ranganathan through classification; LANGRIDGE, D.W.: My debt to Ranganathan; SUBBA RAO, C.V.: Controversies on Dr. S.R. Ranganathan; CHAND, K. u. G. SINGH: Impact of information technology on Ranganathan's five laws; SATIJA, M.P.: Research in librarianship before and after Ranganathan; BATTY, C.D.: The influence of Ranganathan on the structural design of index languages; DHYANI, P.: Ranganathan's normatice principles and Dewey Decimal Classification; FRIIS-HANSEN, J.: Facets and clusters; HUNTER, E.J.: Ranganathan UK: The influence of Ranganathan's work on the development of classification and indexing in the United Kingdom; McILWAINE, I.C.: Ranganathan and classification in Britain; BAKEWELL, K.G.B.: Ranganathan and library management; BHARGAVA, G,D.: Dr. S.R. Ranganathan - my teacher and mentor; NAVALINI, K.: The tallest torch bearer; COMARONI, J.P.: Ranganathan's influence on American librarianship; KONNOR, M.B.: Dr. S.R. Ranganathan - American view; SHARMA, R.N.: Ranganathan and the United States

0.0059998734 = product of:
  0.011999747 = sum of:
    0.011999747 = product of:
      0.023999494 = sum of:
        0.023999494 = weight(_text_:library in 2273) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023999494 = score(doc=2273,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052364815 = queryNorm
            0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 2273, 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=2273)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

The aim of the paper is to provide an improved understanding of the classification applied in the Seven Epitomes (Qi lüe), the first documented classified library catalogue in China (completed in the first century BCE). Chinese bibliographers have suggested that Liu Xin, the compiler of the catalogue, followed the Principle of Classicist Values, state of scholarship, literary warrant, and ideas of yin/yang and the Five Phases to devise the six-fold classification. By applying a multidimensional framework constructed for a large-scale research project, the author re-examined the origins of the six main classes in the catalogue within its own social, cultural, and political contexts. Issues highlighted for discussion include the concept of "discipline", the limitation of the classification in relation to literary warrant, and the motives of intellectual control and social engineering.

0.0059998734 = product of:
  0.011999747 = sum of:
    0.011999747 = product of:
      0.023999494 = sum of:
        0.023999494 = weight(_text_:library in 3510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023999494 = score(doc=3510,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052364815 = queryNorm
            0.17430481 = fieldWeight in 3510, 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=3510)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A major characteristic of classification is teleology interpreted as a linear progression toward knowledge. G.W.F. Hegel's three stages of knowledge development: Being (Sein), Essence (Wesen), and Idea (Begriff), explicated in his Science of logic form such a progression. Feminist postcolonial critic Gayatri Spivak calls this kind of progression as an "epistemograph". Classification is a manifestation of Western logic and the sequence of main classes is illustrative of the progression that reflects Hegel's epistemograph. DDC and UDC between them represent library classification globally and use a sequence of main classes derived from Hegel and indirectly from Bacon. The lingering consequences of this heritage still create dilemmas in our organization of knowledge.

0.005656735 = product of:
  0.01131347 = sum of:
    0.01131347 = product of:
      0.02262694 = sum of:
        0.02262694 = weight(_text_:library in 3629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02262694 = score(doc=3629,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052364815 = queryNorm
            0.16433616 = fieldWeight in 3629, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3629)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Toward the end of the nineteenth century, Paul Otlet and Henri LaFontaine of Belgium initiated the compilation of an index to all recorded knowledge. Instead of an alphabetical file, they decided to adopt a classified arrangement. For the basis of such an arrangement, they turned to the Dewey Decimal Classification, a system which was gaining wide acceptance in American libraries. With permission secured from Melvil Dewey to expand the system to include details required for an indexing tool, Otlet and LaFontaine began developing what was to become the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC). Following the establishment of the Institut International de Bibliographie (IIB), later the Fédération Internationale de Documentation (FID), in 1895, work an the universal index and the classification scheme proceeded under its aegis. In 1905, the classification scheme was published as the Manuel du Répertoire bibliographique universel. While the initial, ambitious project of the universal index was abandoned, the classification scheme itself was widely adopted, particularly in special libraries in Europe. A second edition was published in 1927-1933 under the title Classification décimale universelle. The development and maintanance of the scheme continued with the support of the FID. In the course of its development, the UDC moved further and further away from its prototype, the Dewey Decimal Classification. One of the major differences between the two systems is the use of relators in UDC. The notation adopted by Melvil Dewey for his scheme is a hierarchical one; in other words, the notation reflects the hierarchical relationships among subjects. However, it does not display the relationships among the facets, or aspects, of a particular subject. Furthermore, the use of auxiliaries in the Dewey Decimal Classification, beginning with the form subdivisions and gradually expanding to include geographic subdivisions and finally other auxiliaries in the most recent editions, has been relatively restricted. As an indexing tool, Otlet and LaFontaine felt that their system needed commonly applicable auxiliaries which they called "determinatives."` To this end, a series of special symbols were introduced into the system for the purpose of combining related subjects and indicating different facets or aspects of the main subject. The use of these symbols, called relators, with the auxiliaries has rendered the Universal Decimal Classification a synthetic scheme. In this respect, the UDC has moved much more rapidly than the Dewey Decimal Classification toward becoming a faceted classification. In the following paper, Henry V. Hopwood, a Senior Assistant at the British Patent Office Library during the 1900s, explains the use and rationale of relators, or "marks," as he calls them, in the Universal Decimal Classification.

Footnote

Original in: Library Association Record 9(1907) S.307-322.

0.005321032 = product of:
  0.010642064 = sum of:
    0.010642064 = product of:
      0.021284128 = sum of:
        0.021284128 = weight(_text_:22 in 1786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021284128 = score(doc=1786,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18337266 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052364815 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 1786, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1786)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2008 17:56:19

0.0049998946 = product of:
  0.009999789 = sum of:
    0.009999789 = product of:
      0.019999579 = sum of:
        0.019999579 = weight(_text_:library in 3945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019999579 = score(doc=3945,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052364815 = queryNorm
            0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 3945, 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=3945)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present the initial relationship between the Classification Research Group (CRG) and the Center for Documentation and Communication Research (CDCR) and how this relationship changed between 1952 and 1970. The theory of normative behavior and its concepts of worldviews, social norms, social types, and information behavior are used to characterize the relationship between the small worlds of the two groups with the intent of understanding the gap between early classification research and information retrieval (IR) research. Design/methodology/approach This is a mixed method analysis of two groups as evidenced in published artifacts by and about their work. A thorough review of historical literature about the groups as well as their own published works was employed and an author co-citation analysis was used to characterize the conceptual similarities and differences of the two groups of researchers. Findings The CRG focused on fundamental principles to aid classification and retrieval of information. The CDCR were more inclined to develop practical methods of retrieval without benefit of good theoretical foundations. The CRG began it work under the contention that the general classification schemes at the time were inadequate for the developing IR mechanisms. The CDCR rejected the classification schemes of the times and focused on developing punch card mechanisms and processes that were generously funded by both government and corporate funding. Originality/value This paper provides a unique historical analysis of two groups of influential researchers in the field of library and information science.

0.0049998946 = product of:
  0.009999789 = sum of:
    0.009999789 = product of:
      0.019999579 = sum of:
        0.019999579 = weight(_text_:library in 5800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019999579 = score(doc=5800,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052364815 = queryNorm
            0.14525402 = fieldWeight in 5800, 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=5800)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Shiyali Ramamrita Ranganathan's theory of classification spans a number of works over a number of decades. And while he was devoted to solving many problems in the practice of librarianship, and is known as the father of library science in India (Garfield, 1984), his work in classification revolves around one central concern. His classification research addressed the problems that arose from introducing new ideas into a scheme for classification, while maintaining a meaningful hierarchical and systematically arranged order of classes. This is because hierarchical and systematically arranged classes are the defining characteristic of useful classification. To lose this order is to through the addition of new classes is to introduce confusion, if not chaos, and to move toward a useless classification - or at least one that requires complete revision. In the following chapter, I outline the stages, and the elements of those stages, in Ranganathan's thought on classification from 1926-1972, as well as posthumous work that continues his agenda. And while facets figure prominently in all of these stages; but for Ranganathan to achieve his goal, he must continually add to this central feature of his theory of classification. I will close this chapter with an outline of persistent problems that represent research fronts for the field. Chief among these are what to do about scheme change and the open question about the rigor of information modeling in light of semantic web developments.

0.0039999154 = product of:
  0.007999831 = sum of:
    0.007999831 = product of:
      0.015999662 = sum of:
        0.015999662 = weight(_text_:library in 3621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015999662 = score(doc=3621,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052364815 = queryNorm
            0.11620321 = fieldWeight in 3621, 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=3621)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Henry Evelyn Bliss (1870-1955) devoted several decades of his life to the study of classification and the development of the Bibliographic Classification scheme while serving as a librarian in the College of the City of New York. In the course of the development of the Bibliographic Classification, Bliss developed a body of classification theory published in a number of articles and books, among which the best known are The Organization of Knowledge and the System of the Sciences (1929), Organization of Knowledge in Libraries and the Subject Approach to Books (1933; 2nd ed., 1939), and the lengthy preface to A Bibliographic Classification (Volumes 1-2, 1940; 2nd ed., 1952). In developing the Bibliographic Classification, Bliss carefully established its philosophical and theoretical basis, more so than was attempted by the makers of other classification schemes, with the possible exception of S. R. Ranganathan (q.v.) and his Colon Classification. The basic principles established by Bliss for the Bibliographic Classification are: consensus, collocation of related subjects, subordination of special to general and gradation in specialty, and the relativity of classes and of classification (hence alternative location and alternative treatment). In the preface to the schedules of A Bibliographic Classification, Bliss spells out the general principles of classification as weIl as principles specifically related to his scheme. The first volume of the schedules appeared in 1940. In 1952, he issued a second edition of the volume with a rewritten preface, from which the following excerpt is taken, and with the addition of a "Concise Synopsis," which is also included here to illustrate the principles of classificatory structure. In the excerpt reprinted below, Bliss discusses the correlation between classes, concepts, and terms, as weIl as the hierarchical structure basic to his classification scheme. In his discussion of cross-classification, Bliss recognizes the "polydimensional" nature of classification and the difficulties inherent in the two-dimensional approach which is characteristic of linear classification. This is one of the earliest works in which the multidimensional nature of classification is recognized. The Bibliographic Classification did not meet with great success in the United States because the Dewey Decimal Classification and the Library of Congress Classification were already weIl ensconced in American libraries by then. Nonetheless, it attracted considerable attention in the British Commonwealth and elsewhere in the world. A committee was formed in Britain which later became the Bliss Classification Association. A faceted edition of the scheme has been in preparation under the direction of J. Mills and V. Broughton. Several parts of this new edition, entitled Bliss Bibliographic Classification, have been published.

0.0029999367 = product of:
  0.0059998734 = sum of:
    0.0059998734 = product of:
      0.011999747 = sum of:
        0.011999747 = weight(_text_:library in 2072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011999747 = score(doc=2072,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13768692 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052364815 = queryNorm
            0.08715241 = fieldWeight in 2072, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.6293786 = idf(docFreq=8668, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2072)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Enthält die Beiträge: SVENONIUS, E.: Classification: prospects, problems, and possibilities; BEALL, J.: Editing the Dewey Decimal Classification online: the evolution of the DDC database; BEGHTOL, C.: Toward a theory of fiction analysis for information storage and retrieval; CRAVEN, T.C.: Concept relation structures and their graphic display; FUGMANN, R.: Illusory goals in information science research; GILCHRIST, A.: UDC: the 1990's and beyond; GREEN, R.: The expression of syntagmatic relationships in indexing: are frame-based index languages the answer?; HUMPHREY, S.M.: Use and management of classification systems for knowledge-based indexing; MIKSA, F.L.: The concept of the universe of knowledge and the purpose of LIS classification; SCOTT, M. u. A.F. FONSECA: Methodology for functional appraisal of records and creation of a functional thesaurus; ALBRECHTSEN, H.: PRESS: a thesaurus-based information system for software reuse; AMAESHI, B.: A preliminary AAT compatible African art thesaurus; CHATTERJEE, A.: Structures of Indian classification systems of the pre-Ranganathan era and their impact on the Colon Classification; COCHRANE, P.A.: Indexing and searching thesauri, the Janus or Proteus of information retrieval; CRAVEN, T.C.: A general versus a special algorithm in the graphic display of thesauri; DAHLBERG, I.: The basis of a new universal classification system seen from a philosophy of science point of view: DRABENSTOTT, K.M., RIESTER, L.C. u. B.A.DEDE: Shelflisting using expert systems; FIDEL, R.: Thesaurus requirements for an intermediary expert system; GREEN, R.: Insights into classification from the cognitive sciences: ramifications for index languages; GROLIER, E. de: Towards a syndetic information retrieval system; GUENTHER, R.: The USMARC format for classification data: development and implementation; HOWARTH, L.C.: Factors influencing policies for the adoption and integration of revisions to classification schedules; HUDON, M.: Term definitions in subject thesauri: the Canadian literacy thesaurus experience; HUSAIN, S.: Notational techniques for the accomodation of subjects in Colon Classification 7th edition: theoretical possibility vis-à-vis practical need; KWASNIK, B.H. u. C. JORGERSEN: The exploration by means of repertory grids of semantic differences among names of official documents; MICCO, M.: Suggestions for automating the Library of Congress Classification schedules; PERREAULT, J.M.: An essay on the prehistory of general categories (II): G.W. Leibniz, Conrad Gesner; REES-POTTER, L.K.: How well do thesauri serve the social sciences?; REVIE, C.W. u. G. SMART: The construction and the use of faceted classification schema in technical domains; ROCKMORE, M.: Structuring a flexible faceted thsaurus record for corporate information retrieval; ROULIN, C.: Sub-thesauri as part of a metathesaurus; SMITH, L.C.: UNISIST revisited: compatibility in the context of collaboratories; STILES, W.G.: Notes concerning the use chain indexing as a possible means of simulating the inductive leap within artificial intelligence; SVENONIUS, E., LIU, S. u. B. SUBRAHMANYAM: Automation in chain indexing; TURNER, J.: Structure in data in the Stockshot database at the National Film Board of Canada; VIZINE-GOETZ, D.: The Dewey Decimal Classification as an online classification tool; WILLIAMSON, N.J.: Restructuring UDC: problems and possibilies; WILSON, A.: The hierarchy of belief: ideological tendentiousness in universal classification; WILSON, B.F.: An evaluation of the systematic botany schedule of the Universal Decimal Classification (English full edition, 1979); ZENG, L.: Research and development of classification and thesauri in China; CONFERENCE SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS