Search (46 results, page 1 of 3)

0.056243166 = product of:
  0.11248633 = sum of:
    0.11248633 = sum of:
      0.07010528 = weight(_text_:classification in 1420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07010528 = score(doc=1420,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.42223644 = fieldWeight in 1420, 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=1420)
      0.04238106 = weight(_text_:22 in 1420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04238106 = score(doc=1420,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1420, 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=1420)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

There is greater depth in knowledge organization systems beyond the surface of hierarchically-structured concepts. Deconstructed elements of a knowledge organization system share network-like relationships that might be used in interaction with the characteristics of documents to provide "classification interaction" as a means of identifying previously undiscovered relationships. A random sample of UDC call numbers from the online catalog of the Catholic University of Leuven (KU Leuven) is analyzed to discover interactions among conceptual classification, instantiation, and bibliographic demographic characteristics. The associations demonstrated represent ways in which predictable interactions occur among classified bibliographic entities and the components of the rich UDC classification.

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

0.03871685 = product of:
  0.0774337 = sum of:
    0.0774337 = sum of:
      0.03505264 = weight(_text_:classification in 1415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03505264 = score(doc=1415,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 1415, 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=1415)
      0.04238106 = weight(_text_:22 in 1415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04238106 = score(doc=1415,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1415, 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=1415)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Domain analysis reveals the contours of knowledge in diverse discourse communities. The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) conferences represent the cutting edge of research in metadata for the digital age. Beak and Smiraglia (2013) discovered a shared epistemology revealed by co-citation perceptions of the domain, a common ontological base, social semantics, and a limited but focused intent. User groups did not emerge from that analysis, raising an interesting question about the content of core thematic extension versus a highly granular intension. We analyzed keywords from the titles by year to identify core and granular topics as they arose over time. The results showed that only 36 core keywords, e.g. "Dublin Core," "Metadata," "Linked Data," "Applications," etc. represents the domain's extension. However, there was much rich terminology among the granularity, e.g., "development," "description," "interoperability," "analysis," "applications," and "classification" and even "domain" pointed to the domain's intension.

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

0.030650992 = product of:
  0.061301984 = sum of:
    0.061301984 = sum of:
      0.033047944 = weight(_text_:classification in 770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.033047944 = score(doc=770,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.19904417 = fieldWeight in 770, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=770)
      0.028254041 = weight(_text_:22 in 770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028254041 = score(doc=770,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18256627 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05213454 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 770, 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=770)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of the research reported here is to improve comprehension of the socially-negotiated identity of concepts in the domain of knowledge organization. Because knowledge organization as a domain has as its focus the order of concepts, both from a theoretical perspective and from an applied perspective, it is important to understand how the domain itself understands the meaning of a concept. Design/methodology/approach - The paper provides an empirical demonstration of how the domain itself understands the meaning of a concept. The paper employs content analysis to demonstrate the ways in which concepts are portrayed in KO concept maps as signs, and they are subjected to evaluative semiotic analysis as a way to understand their meaning. The frame was the entire population of formal proceedings in knowledge organization - all proceedings of the International Society for Knowledge Organization's international conferences (1990-2010) and those of the annual classification workshops of the Special Interest Group for Classification Research of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (SIG/CR). Findings - A total of 344 concept maps were analyzed. There was no discernible chronological pattern. Most concept maps were created by authors who were professors from the USA, Germany, France, or Canada. Roughly half were judged to contain semiotic content. Peirceian semiotics predominated, and tended to convey greater granularity and complexity in conceptual terminology. Nodes could be identified as anchors of conceptual clusters in the domain; the arcs were identifiable as verbal relationship indicators. Saussurian concept maps were more applied than theoretical; Peirceian concept maps had more theoretical content. Originality/value - The paper demonstrates important empirical evidence about the coherence of the domain of knowledge organization. Core values are conveyed across time through the concept maps in this population of conference papers.

Content

Vgl. auch den Beitrag: Treude, L.: Das Problem der Konzeptdefinition in der Wissensorganisation: über einen missglückten Versuch der Klärung. In: LIBREAS: Library ideas. no.22, 2013, S.xx-xx.

0.024220096 = product of:
  0.048440192 = sum of:
    0.048440192 = product of:
      0.096880384 = sum of:
        0.096880384 = weight(_text_:classification in 5399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.096880384 = score(doc=5399,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.58349997 = fieldWeight in 5399, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5399)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Research information can be useful to science stake-holders for discovering, evaluating and planning research activities. In the Netherlands, the institute tasked with the stewardship of national research information is DANS (Data Archiving and Networked Services). DANS is the home of NARCIS, the national portal for research information, which uses a similarly named national research classification. The NARCIS Classification assigns symbols to represent the knowledge bases of contributing scholars. A recent research stream in knowledge organization known as comparative classification uses two or more classifications experimentally to generate empirical evidence about coverage of conceptual content, population of the classes, and economy of classification. This paper builds on that research in order to further understand the comparative impact of the NARCIS Classification alongside a classification designed specifically for information resources. Our six cases come from the DANS project Knowledge Organization System Observatory (KOSo), which itself is classified using the Information Coding Classification (ICC) created in 1982 by Ingetraut Dahlberg. ICC is considered to have the merits of universality, faceting, and a top-down approach. Results are exploratory, indicating that both classifications provide fairly precise coverage. The inflexibility of the NARCIS Classification makes it difficult to express complex concepts. The meta-ontological, epistemic stance of the ICC is apparent in all aspects of this study. Using the two together in the DANS KOS Observatory will provide users with both clarity of scientific positioning and ontological relativity.

Footnote

Beitrag eines Special Issue: Research Information Systems and Science Classifications; including papers from "Trajectories for Research: Fathoming the Promise of the NARCIS Classification," 27-28 September 2018, The Hague, The Netherlands.

Object

NARCIS classification

0.023368426 = product of:
  0.04673685 = sum of:
    0.04673685 = product of:
      0.0934737 = sum of:
        0.0934737 = weight(_text_:classification in 5401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0934737 = score(doc=5401,freq=32.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.5629819 = fieldWeight in 5401, product of:
              5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
                32.0 = termFreq=32.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5401)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

NARCIS-National Academic Research and Collaborations Information System is the national research portal for the Netherlands' data and research archiving, which is governed by its own NARCIS Classification. The current instantiation of the classification dates from 2015. The classification is currently made up of two classes D for the sciences broadly, and E for interdisciplinary areas. The NARCIS Classification is designed specifically and with care for the contents of the NARCIS data portal. The classification mostly represents the sciences. A few anomalous situations are visible in the ontology of the classification: the humanities occupy one division within the sciences, placed between the life sciences and law; and, the treatment of interdisciplinarity, for which a separate class E is set aside for interdisciplinary sciences. A dump of the NARCIS database was used to analyze the population of the NARCIS classification. The life sciences occupy 34% of the NARCIS database. A framework for research networking systems reveals the NARCIS database and its classification meet most objectives, with the only lapse being the output of entities and attributes to ontologies. The NARCIS Classification is also an occupational classification. The NARCIS Classification supports a vital research portal that, in turn, supports a nationally-coordinated research effort designed to provide better inter-institutional communication of scholarly productivity, thus is in itself an information institution, in which domain-dependence is part of its cultural imperative. The NARCIS Classification incorporates an example of top-down politics in which funded disciplines are included and best represented. A perhaps unintended consequence is the encapsulation of forced views. Trajectories for further discussion with regard to continued development of the NARCIS Classification include identity, interoperability, interdisciplinarity, and synthesis.

Footnote

Beitrag eines Special Issue: Research Information Systems and Science Classifications; including papers from "Trajectories for Research: Fathoming the Promise of the NARCIS Classification," 27-28 September 2018, The Hague, The Netherlands.

Object

NARCIS classification

0.019595021 = product of:
  0.039190043 = sum of:
    0.039190043 = product of:
      0.078380086 = sum of:
        0.078380086 = weight(_text_:classification in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.078380086 = score(doc=2648,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.4720747 = fieldWeight in 2648, 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=2648)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A historic development from the mid-20th century has promise for utility in the global organization of knowledge in the 20 century and beyond. Essential concepts of knowledge organization such as the origin of domain- and ecology-specific ontologies are explored, and insight into classification warrant is offered. The Sachs Classification as it now exists and the Worldmark Encyclopedia from which it evolved are described. The continuing evolution of knowledge organizations based an the methodology of the Sachs Classification is demonstrated. Promise for enhanced knowledge management, and for management of electronic resources is demonstrated. The Sachs Classification can be viewed as a methodology for potentially powerful knowledge management through the development of domain- and ecology-specific ontologies, and its methodology is demonstrated as applicable to new and evolving knowledge domains.

0.019320952 = product of:
  0.038641904 = sum of:
    0.038641904 = product of:
      0.07728381 = sum of:
        0.07728381 = weight(_text_:classification in 4830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07728381 = score(doc=4830,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.46547192 = fieldWeight in 4830, 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=4830)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Classification systems are often described as stable reference systems. Sometimes they are accused of being inflexible concerning the coverage of new ideas and scientific fields. Classification as an activity is the basis of all theory-generating research, and also plays a powerful role in social ordering. It is obvious that the ways in which we seek information and in which information is provided has changed dramatically since the emergence of digital information processing and even more with the internet, and web-based technologies. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the notion of a stable knowledge organization classification as a temporary stationary manifestation of an open and evolving system of classification. We compare the structure of the main classes in the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) according to their usage of special auxiliaries to demonstrate the dynamic evolution of the UDC over time, as a stable reference system representing published organized knowledge. We view the ecology of the UDC, and discover that most changes are to the ecology itself as numbers are re-interpreted. This subtle type of change is a key to monitoring the evolution of knowledge as it is represented in the UDC's stable reference system.

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

0.017707944 = product of:
  0.035415888 = sum of:
    0.035415888 = product of:
      0.070831776 = sum of:
        0.070831776 = weight(_text_:classification in 825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.070831776 = score(doc=825,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.42661208 = fieldWeight in 825, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=825)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

To classify is to put things in meaningful groups, but the criteria for doing so can be problematic. Study of evolution of classification includes ontogenetic analysis of change in classification over time. We present an empirical analysis of the UDC over the entire period of its development. We demonstrate stability in main classes, with major change driven by 20th century scientific developments. But we also demonstrate a vast increase in the complexity of auxiliaries. This study illustrates an alternative to Tennis scheme-versioning method.

0.01752632 = product of:
  0.03505264 = sum of:
    0.03505264 = product of:
      0.07010528 = sum of:
        0.07010528 = weight(_text_:classification in 3573) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07010528 = score(doc=3573,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.42223644 = fieldWeight in 3573, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3573)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 11(1990) nos.3/4, S.1-15

0.01752632 = product of:
  0.03505264 = sum of:
    0.03505264 = product of:
      0.07010528 = sum of:
        0.07010528 = weight(_text_:classification in 4238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07010528 = score(doc=4238,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.42223644 = fieldWeight in 4238, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4238)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.01752632 = product of:
  0.03505264 = sum of:
    0.03505264 = product of:
      0.07010528 = sum of:
        0.07010528 = weight(_text_:classification in 5731) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07010528 = score(doc=5731,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.42223644 = fieldWeight in 5731, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5731)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 40(2005) nos.3/4, S.1-15

0.01752632 = product of:
  0.03505264 = sum of:
    0.03505264 = product of:
      0.07010528 = sum of:
        0.07010528 = weight(_text_:classification in 4162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07010528 = score(doc=4162,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.42223644 = fieldWeight in 4162, 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=4162)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The cataloging and classification community was called to highlight 2010 as "The Year of Cataloging Research," and specifically was challenged to generate research ideas, conduct research, and generally promote the development of new research in cataloging. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly has become the most influential journal of research in cataloging and classification since its inception in 1981. The idea behind the research reported here was to give the CCQ editorial board an opportunity to present its point of view about research for cataloging. A Delphi study was conducted in three stages during the 2009-2010 academic year. Members were asked to define the key terms "cataloging," "evidence," and "research," and to develop a research agenda in cataloging. The results reveal a basic core definition of cataloging perceived as a dynamic, active process at the core of information retrieval. An eight point research agenda emerges that is forward-looking and embraces change, along with top-ranked calls for new empirical evidence about catalogs, cataloging, and catalog users.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 48(2010) no.8, S.645-651

0.01752632 = product of:
  0.03505264 = sum of:
    0.03505264 = product of:
      0.07010528 = sum of:
        0.07010528 = weight(_text_:classification in 4812) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07010528 = score(doc=4812,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.42223644 = fieldWeight in 4812, 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=4812)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Contrasts in 20th century classification theory relate to a transition from a universe of "knowledge" system towards one of "concepts' Initiatives to develop a Simple Knowledge Organization Systems (SKOS) standard based on classification schemes and taxonomies within the framework of the Semantic Web (SW) are attempts to bridge the gap. Current knowledge organization systems (KOS) seem to reinforce "syntactics" at the expense of semantics. We claim that all structure is syntactic but knowledge structures need to have a semantic component as well. Therefore we consider classifications as artificial languages. The Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) constitutes a natural language-independent notation system that allows for mediating between concepts and knowledge systems. We discuss an elementary theory of knowledge organization based on the structure of knowledge rather than on the content of documents. Semantics becomes not a matter of synonymous concepts, but rather of coordinating knowledge structures. The interactions between these systems represent interactions between different universes of knowledge or concepts.

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

0.014605265 = product of:
  0.02921053 = sum of:
    0.02921053 = product of:
      0.05842106 = sum of:
        0.05842106 = weight(_text_:classification in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05842106 = score(doc=2509,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.35186368 = fieldWeight in 2509, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2509)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Perception is a crucial element in the viability of any knowledge organization system because it acts as a filter that provides contextual information about phenomena, including potential categorical membership. Perception is moderated culturally, but "social" systems exercise little or no cultural conformity. "Every day classification" is rife throughout human experience; but classification arises as a system of formal constraints that embody cultural assumptions about the categories that are the products of human cognition. Noesis is a perceptual component of Husserl's phenomenological approach to human experience. How we perceive a thing is filtered by our experiential feelings about it. The purpose of this research is to increase understanding of the role of cognition in every day classification by developing a fuller profile of perception. Photographs of mailboxes (a mundane, every-day example) from different locales are compared to demonstrate the noetic process. Tag clouds are analyzed to demonstrate the kinds of perceptual differences that suggest different user perceptions among those contributing tags.

0.014605265 = product of:
  0.02921053 = sum of:
    0.02921053 = product of:
      0.05842106 = sum of:
        0.05842106 = weight(_text_:classification in 3627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05842106 = score(doc=3627,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.35186368 = fieldWeight in 3627, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3627)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A very important extension of the traditional domain of knowledge organization (KO) arises from attempts to incorporate techniques devised in the computer science domain for automatic concept extraction and for grouping, categorizing, clustering and otherwise organizing knowledge using mechanical means. Four specific terms have emerged to identify the most prevalent techniques: machine learning, clustering, automatic indexing, and automatic classification. Our study presents three domain analytical case analyses in search of answers. The first case relies on citations located using the ISKO-supported "Knowledge Organization Bibliography." The second case relies on works in both Web of Science and SCOPUS. Case three applies co-word analysis and citation analysis to the contents of the papers in the present special issue. We observe scholars involved in "clustering" and "automatic classification" who share common thematic emphases. But we have found no coherence, no common activity and no social semantics. We have not found a research front, or a common teleology within the KO domain. We also have found a lively group of authors who have succeeded in submitting papers to this special issue, and their work quite interestingly aligns with the case studies we report. There is an emphasis on KO for information retrieval; there is much work on clustering (which involves conceptual points within texts) and automatic classification (which involves semantic groupings at the meta-document level).

0.014458476 = product of:
  0.028916951 = sum of:
    0.028916951 = product of:
      0.057833903 = sum of:
        0.057833903 = weight(_text_:classification in 1907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057833903 = score(doc=1907,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.34832728 = fieldWeight in 1907, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1907)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The library catalog as a catalog of works was an infectious idea, which together with research led to reconceptualization in the form of the FRBR conceptual model. Two categories of lacunae emerge-the expression entity, and gaps in the model such as aggregates and dynamic documents. Evidence needed to extend the FRBR model is available in contemporary research on instantiation. The challenge for the bibliographic community is to begin to think of FRBR as a form of knowledge organization system, adding a final dimension to classification. The papers in the present volume offer a compendium of the promise of the FRBR model.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 50(2012) no.5/7, S.360-368

0.014458476 = product of:
  0.028916951 = sum of:
    0.028916951 = product of:
      0.057833903 = sum of:
        0.057833903 = weight(_text_:classification in 3874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057833903 = score(doc=3874,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.34832728 = fieldWeight in 3874, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3874)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We take a small sample of works and compare how these are classified within both the Universal Decimal Classification and the Basic concepts Classification. We examine notational length, expressivity, network effects, and the number of subject strings. One key finding is that BCC typically synthesizes many more terms than UDC in classifying a particular document - but the length of classificatory notations is roughly equivalent for the two KOSs. BCC captures documents with fewer subject strings (generally one) but these are more complex.

0.011684213 = product of:
  0.023368426 = sum of:
    0.023368426 = product of:
      0.04673685 = sum of:
        0.04673685 = weight(_text_:classification in 4891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04673685 = score(doc=4891,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.28149095 = fieldWeight in 4891, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4891)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.010327483 = product of:
  0.020654965 = sum of:
    0.020654965 = product of:
      0.04130993 = sum of:
        0.04130993 = weight(_text_:classification in 5631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04130993 = score(doc=5631,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.24880521 = fieldWeight in 5631, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5631)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Beitrag eines Themenheftes: Historical aspects of cataloging and classification; Part II

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 35(2003) nos.3/4, S.xx-xx

0.010327483 = product of:
  0.020654965 = sum of:
    0.020654965 = product of:
      0.04130993 = sum of:
        0.04130993 = weight(_text_:classification in 5652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04130993 = score(doc=5652,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16603322 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05213454 = queryNorm
            0.24880521 = fieldWeight in 5652, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5652)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Also published as Cataloging and Classification Quarterly, 35(2002/03)1/2 and 35(2002/03)3/4

Source

Historical aspects of cataloging and classification. Ed.: M.D. Joachim