Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.03225517 = product of:
  0.080637924 = sum of:
    0.052878078 = weight(_text_:books in 1424) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052878078 = score(doc=1424,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.21359414 = fieldWeight in 1424, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1424)
    0.027759846 = weight(_text_:22 in 1424) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027759846 = score(doc=1424,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1424, 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=1424)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Some scholars argue that certain classificatory structures possess inherent social-semantic values and that the desirability (or lack thereof) of these values should form a basis for evaluating the classificatory goodness of such structures. Others hold that it is possible to distinguish between the structural properties of a given classificatory structure and the semantic content (and values) of the classification in which it is used, and that the classificatory goodness of a given structural form is best evaluated by its capacity to support effectively the organization of re-sources in a given context. This paper illustrates the second, "functionalist" position by means of a historical case study examining the contrasting evaluations of a single structural form - namely, the flat (a)hierarchical structure known as constitutive classification - by two early pioneers of knowledge organization, Julius Otto Kaiser and James Duff Brown. Both men knew of the use of constitutive classification for the organization of documents and were aware of its affordances, yet formed highly different opinions of it: Kaiser, a special librarian who sought to classify documents by documentary form in business offices and business libraries, endorsed it, whil Brown, a public librarian concerned with subject-based classification of books, rejected it. In both cases, it was the functional capacity (or lack thereof) of constitutive classification to enable an adequate classification of documents with respect to a given semantic content and in a certain context that determined the evaluation of its structural form. This example suggests that structural form is analytically separable from semantic context and social context and that it is its functional alignment with the latter, rather than any supposedly inherent socio-semantic values, that has, in the past, served as a norm for evaluating the goodness of classificatory structures.

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

0.014956179 = product of:
  0.0747809 = sum of:
    0.0747809 = weight(_text_:books in 3859) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0747809 = score(doc=3859,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.30206773 = fieldWeight in 3859, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3859)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Modelling bibliographical entities is a prominent activity within knowledge organization today. Current models of bibliographic entities, such as Functional Requirements for Bibliographical Records (FRBR) and the Bibliographic Framework (BIBFRAME), take inspiration from data - modelling methods developed by computer scientists from the mid - 1970s on. Thus, it would seem that the modelling of bibliographic entities is an activity of very recent vintage. However, it is possible to find examples of bibliographical models from earlier periods of knowledge organization. The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to one such model, outlined by the early 20th - century British classification theorist E. Wyndham Hulme in his essay on "Principles of Book Classification" (1911 - 1912). There, Hulme set forth a classification of various attributes by which books can conceivably be classified. These he first divided into accidental and inseparable attributes. Accidental attributes were subdivided into edition - level and copy - level attributes and inseparable attitudes, into physical and non - physical attributes. Comparison of Hulme's classification of attributes with those of FRBR and BIBFRAME 2.0 reveals that the different classes of attributes in Hulme's classification correspond to groups of attributes associated with different bibliographical entities in those models. These later models assume the existence of different bibliographic entities in an abstraction hierarchy among which attributes are distributed, whereas Hulme posited only a single entity - the book - , whose various aspects he clustered into different classes of attributes. Thus, Hulme's model offers an interesting alternative to current assumptions about how to conceptualize the relationship between attributes and entities in the bibliographical universe.

0.014956179 = product of:
  0.0747809 = sum of:
    0.0747809 = weight(_text_:books in 4141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0747809 = score(doc=4141,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.24756333 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.30206773 = fieldWeight in 4141, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.8330836 = idf(docFreq=956, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4141)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Modelling bibliographical entities is a prominent activity within knowledge organization today. Current models of bibliographic entities, such as Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and the Bibliographic Framework (BIBFRAME), take inspiration from data-modelling methods developed by computer scientists from the mid-1970s on. Thus, it would seem that the modelling of bibliographic entities is an activity of very recent vintage. However, it is possible to find examples of bibliographical models from earlier periods of knowledge organization. The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to one such model, outlined by the early twentiethcentury British classification theorist E. Wyndham Hulme in his essay on "Principles of Book Classification" (1911-1912). There, Hulme set forth a classification of various attributes by which books can be classified. These he first divided into "accidental" and "inseparable" attributes. Accidental attributes were subdivided into edition-level and copy-level attributes and inseparable attitudes, into "physical" and "non-physical" attributes. Comparison of Hulme's classification of attributes with those of FRBR and BIBFRAME 2.0 reveals that the different classes of attributes in Hulme's classification correspond to groups of attributes associated with different bibliographical entities in those models. These later models assume the existence of different bibliographic entities in an abstract hierarchy among which attributes are distributed, whereas Hulme posited only a single entity-the book-whose various aspects he clustered into different classes of attributes. Thus, Hulme's model offers an interesting alternative to current assumptions about how to conceptualize the relationship between attributes and entities in the bibliographical universe.

0.006939962 = product of:
  0.03469981 = sum of:
    0.03469981 = weight(_text_:22 in 3509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03469981 = score(doc=3509,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3509, 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=3509)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Pages

S.15-22

0.006939962 = product of:
  0.03469981 = sum of:
    0.03469981 = weight(_text_:22 in 1417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03469981 = score(doc=1417,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1417, 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=1417)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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

0.006939962 = product of:
  0.03469981 = sum of:
    0.03469981 = weight(_text_:22 in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03469981 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17937298 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051222645 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1418, 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=1418)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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