Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.06038057 = product of:
  0.12076114 = sum of:
    0.12076114 = sum of:
      0.078380086 = weight(_text_:classification in 2464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.078380086 = score(doc=2464,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.4720747 = fieldWeight in 2464, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2464)
      0.04238106 = weight(_text_:22 in 2464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04238106 = score(doc=2464,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = 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)

Abstract

A fascinating, broad-ranging article about classification, knowledge, and how they relate. Hierarchies, trees, paradigms (a two-dimensional classification that can look something like a spreadsheet), and facets are covered, with descriptions of how they work and how they can be used for knowledge discovery and creation. Kwasnick outlines how to make a faceted classification: choose facets, develop facets, analyze entities using the facets, and make a citation order. Facets are useful for many reasons: they do not require complete knowledge of the entire body of material; they are hospitable, flexible, and expressive; they do not require a rigid background theory; they can mix theoretical structures and models; and they allow users to view things from many perspectives. Facets do have faults: it can be hard to pick the right ones; it is hard to show relations between them; and it is difficult to visualize them. The coverage of the other methods is equally thorough and there is much to consider for anyone putting a classification on the web.

Source

Library trends. 48(1999) no.1, S.22-47

0.024785958 = product of:
  0.049571916 = sum of:
    0.049571916 = product of:
      0.09914383 = sum of:
        0.09914383 = weight(_text_:classification in 8886) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09914383 = score(doc=8886,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.5971325 = fieldWeight in 8886, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=8886)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Proceedings of the 5th ASIS SIG/CR Classification Research Workshop, Oct. 16, 1994, Alexandria, VA. Ed.: R. Fidel u.a

0.02023765 = product of:
  0.0404753 = sum of:
    0.0404753 = product of:
      0.0809506 = sum of:
        0.0809506 = weight(_text_:classification in 2652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0809506 = score(doc=2652,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.48755667 = fieldWeight in 2652, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2652)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The aim of this study was to describe how the Korean Decimal Classification (KDC), which is based on the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), accommodated translation and adaptation issues in making the scheme culturally hospitable. We made a concept-by-concept comparison of terms in selected sections of the KDC with the analogous terms or sections in the DDC, noting the differences and similarities of terms and structure. Our analysis suggests that, overall, the KDC succeeded in this endeavor, and that the process of adaptation made good use of several adaptive strategies identified in previous work: adjustments to term specificity and term location in the classificatory structure, as well as the addition of uniquely Korean terms.

Content

1. Introduction We recognize that many difficulties arise in the process of translation of a classification system from the source to another language and culture. Clare Beghtol (2002) argues that making classifications culturally hospitable by including provisions for specific aspects of a culture will enhance its utility. In this paper we analyse orte instance of a classification translation, namely the Korean Decimal Classification (KDC) and compare it to the classification from which it emerged, the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC). For a classification designed from orte perspective and for orte culture to be hospitable to a different culture and language it must take into account other possible relationships, and other possible way of identifying and labeling concepts. Among these are finding corresponding terminology and being able to reflect the relationship between terms in the target language correctly. The aim of this study was to describe how the KDC coped with such translation and adaptation issues. In a previous study (Kwasnik & Rubin, in press) we interviewed native speakers in fourteen languages and described the way in which common kinship terms, such as mother, grandparents, and children, differ from the English, not only lexically, but also in the way in which the terms are construed and related to each other. We compared the terms gathered from these Interviews with their position and use in the Dewey Decimal and Library of Congress classifications. We proceeded from concepts collected from individuals to the concepts already in place in an existing classification scheme. This provided us with a set of classification-translation issues that served as a framework for analysis in the present study. Using the framework, we explored the Situation where an existing scheme has already been adapted into another language and culture. By comparing sections of the KDC with the DDC, from which it was adapted, we could describe how and whether the potential problems identified in the earlier study are accommodated in this translated classification scheme.

0.019320952 = product of:
  0.038641904 = sum of:
    0.038641904 = product of:
      0.07728381 = sum of:
        0.07728381 = weight(_text_:classification in 5641) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07728381 = score(doc=5641,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.46547192 = fieldWeight in 5641, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5641)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

No matter how immutable a classification may seem, it is, after all, an artifact of the human imagination and functions in a particular place and time. The author describes her personal inquiry into classification as a knowledge-representation process. She traces her changing perspectives on how classifications should be viewed and evaluated by posing the following questions: 1) How does the classification process enable or constrain knowing about something or discovering something we did not already know?; 2) In what ways might we develop classifications that enhance our ability to discover meaningful information in the information stores that form a part of our scholarly as well as our everyday lives?; and 3) How might classifications mask or distort knowledge, and how might they serve to disenfranchise people and ideas? These questions are considered through a discussion of classification structures, personal classification, the link of classification to theory, everyday working classifications, translation of classifications, cognitive aspects, browsing, genres, warrant, and the difficulties of navigating complex ontological commitments. The through thread is the importance of context, because classifications can only be seen with respect to the human endeavors that generate them.

0.01752632 = product of:
  0.03505264 = sum of:
    0.03505264 = product of:
      0.07010528 = sum of:
        0.07010528 = weight(_text_:classification in 122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07010528 = score(doc=122,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.42223644 = fieldWeight in 122, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=122)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper reports on a portion of a larger ongoing project. We address the issues of information organization and retrieval in large, active commercial websites. More specifically, we address the use of classification for providing access to the contents of such sites. We approach this analysis by describing the functionality and structure of the classification scheme of one such representative, large, active, commercial websites: eBay.com, a web-based auction site for millions of users and items. We compare eBay's classification scheme with the Art & Architecture Thesaurus, which is a tool for describing and providing access to material culture.

0.01752632 = product of:
  0.03505264 = sum of:
    0.03505264 = product of:
      0.07010528 = sum of:
        0.07010528 = weight(_text_:classification in 5517) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07010528 = score(doc=5517,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.42223644 = fieldWeight in 5517, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5517)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The authors describe the difficulties of translating classifications from a source language and culture to another language and culture. To demonstrate these problems, kinship terms and concepts from native speakers of fourteen languages were collected and analyzed to find differences between their terms and structures and those used in English. Using the representations of kinship terms in the Library of Congress Classification (LCC) and the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) as examples, the authors identified the source of possible lack of mapping between the domain of kinship in the fourteen languages studied and the LCC and DDC. Finally, some preliminary suggestions for how to make translated classifications more linguistically and culturally hospitable are offered.

Content

Beitrag eines Themenheftes "Knowledge organization and classification in international information retrieval"

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 37(2003) nos.1/2, S.33-47

0.015178238 = product of:
  0.030356476 = sum of:
    0.030356476 = product of:
      0.060712952 = sum of:
        0.060712952 = weight(_text_:classification in 2696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060712952 = score(doc=2696,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.3656675 = fieldWeight in 2696, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2696)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The structure and use of the classification for books on the amazon.com website are described and analyzed. The contents of this very large website are changing constantly and the access mechanisms have the main purpose of enabling searchers to find books for purchase. This includes finding books the searcher knows about at the start of the search, as well as those that might present themselves in the course of searching and that are related in some way. Underlying the many access paths to books is a classification scheme comprising a rich network of terms in an enumerative and multihierarchical structure.

0.015178238 = product of:
  0.030356476 = sum of:
    0.030356476 = product of:
      0.060712952 = sum of:
        0.060712952 = weight(_text_:classification in 3481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060712952 = score(doc=3481,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.3656675 = fieldWeight in 3481, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3481)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Through its focus on the semantic, rather than the syntactic axis of bibliographic classification systems, Beghtol's 1986 article on four perspectives of warrant provides us with a set of conceptual tools that can be used to understand, analyze, evaluate and design any knowledge-representation system. In this way warrant, as a concept, joins the ranks of relevance as a pivotal notion, offering a lens for contextualizing the meanings and uses to which ever-evolving classifications are put. With reference to examples, this paper concludes by invoking Beghtol's warrant as a means for systematically evaluating how legacy and emerging classification systems measure up to their mandates. Bezugnahme auf: Beghtol, C.: Semantic validity: concepts of warrants in bibliographic classification systems. In: Library resources and technical services. 30(1986), S.109-125.

0.00876316 = product of:
  0.01752632 = sum of:
    0.01752632 = product of:
      0.03505264 = sum of:
        0.03505264 = weight(_text_:classification in 3531) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03505264 = score(doc=3531,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 3531, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3531)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We compare two separate but related classification schemes in the area of medical information in order to better understand how they might be used together and inform one another. First we examine a "professional" scheme, the thesaurus of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) produced by the U.S. National Library of Medicine. We contrast this with the "naïve" scheme used by the consumer health website, WebMD.com. Using the term autism we compared the strengths and limitations from the perspective of vocabulary, syntax and classificatory structure, context, and warrant. We conclude that in terms of vocabulary and concepts, MeSH may benefit from WebMD's approach to ongoing updates and currency as well as the contextualization of terms. At the same time, WebMD may benefit from some form of vocabulary control for richer expansion of terms and archival retrieval.

0.00876316 = product of:
  0.01752632 = sum of:
    0.01752632 = product of:
      0.03505264 = sum of:
        0.03505264 = weight(_text_:classification in 4811) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03505264 = score(doc=4811,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 4811, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4811)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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