Search (366 results, page 1 of 19)

0.2085483 = product of:
  0.31282246 = sum of:
    0.24847499 = weight(_text_:systematic in 4521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.24847499 = score(doc=4521,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.8749996 = fieldWeight in 4521, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4521)
    0.064347476 = product of:
      0.12869495 = sum of:
        0.12869495 = weight(_text_:indexing in 4521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12869495 = score(doc=4521,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.6766778 = fieldWeight in 4521, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4521)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

J. Kaiser (1868-1927) developed a system of subject indexing based on what he called "concretes" and "processes" to govern the form of subject headings and subdivisions. Although Kaiser applied his systematic indexing to specialized technical and business collections, his ideas are entirely applicable to all book collections and catalogs. Though largely ignored, Kaiser's system is of permanent interest in the study of the development of subject analysis

Object

Kaiser systematic indexing

0.14084071 = product of:
  0.21126106 = sum of:
    0.16038992 = weight(_text_:systematic in 571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16038992 = score(doc=571,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.5648098 = fieldWeight in 571, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=571)
    0.050871145 = product of:
      0.10174229 = sum of:
        0.10174229 = weight(_text_:indexing in 571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10174229 = score(doc=571,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.5349608 = fieldWeight in 571, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=571)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

A native of Germany and a former teacher of languages and music, Julius Otto Kaiser (1868-1927) came to the Philadelphia Commercial Museum to be its librarian in 1896. Faced with the problem of making "information" accessible, he developed a method of indexing he called systematic indexing. The first draft of his scheme, published in 1896-97, was an important landmark in the history of subject analysis. R. K. Olding credits Kaiser with making the greatest single advance in indexing theory since Charles A. Cutter and John Metcalfe eulogizes him by observing that "in sheer capacity for really scientific and logical thinking, Kaiser's was probably the best mind that has ever applied itself to subject indexing." Kaiser was an admirer of "system." By systematic indexing he meant indicating information not with natural language expressions as, for instance, Cutter had advocated, but with artificial expressions constructed according to formulas. Kaiser grudged natural language its approximateness, its vagaries, and its ambiguities. The formulas he introduced were to provide a "machinery for regularising or standardising language" (paragraph 67). Kaiser recognized three categories or "facets" of index terms: (1) terms of concretes, representing things, real or imaginary (e.g., money, machines); (2) terms of processes, representing either conditions attaching to things or their actions (e.g., trade, manufacture); and (3) terms of localities, representing, for the most part, countries (e.g., France, South Africa). Expressions in Kaiser's index language were called statements. Statements consisted of sequences of terms, the syntax of which was prescribed by formula. These formulas specified sequences of terms by reference to category types. Only three citation orders were permitted: a term in the concrete category followed by one in the process category (e.g., Wool-Scouring); (2) a country term followed by a process term (e.g., Brazil - Education); and (3) a concrete term followed by a country term, followed by a process term (e.g., Nitrate-Chile-Trade). Kaiser's system was a precursor of two of the most significant developments in twentieth-century approaches to subject access-the special purpose use of language for indexing, thus the concept of index language, which was to emerge as a generative idea at the time of the second Cranfield experiment (1966) and the use of facets to categorize subject indicators, which was to become the characterizing feature of analytico-synthetic indexing methods such as the Colon classification. In addition to its visionary quality, Kaiser's work is notable for its meticulousness and honesty, as can be seen, for instance, in his observations about the difficulties in facet definition.

Footnote

Original in: Kaiser, J.O.: Systematic indexing. London: Pitman 1991. Vol. II, Paragraphs 1-18, 52-58, 295-348.

Object

Kaiser systematic indexing

0.12597175 = product of:
  0.18895762 = sum of:
    0.14345708 = weight(_text_:systematic in 740) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14345708 = score(doc=740,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.5051812 = fieldWeight in 740, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=740)
    0.045500536 = product of:
      0.09100107 = sum of:
        0.09100107 = weight(_text_:indexing in 740) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09100107 = score(doc=740,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.47848347 = fieldWeight in 740, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=740)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The proliferation of online public access catalogs (OPACs) requires some systematic rationale for the comparative evaluation of their designs. Considered as an indexing application, the OPAC can be analyzed by three features: the variety of bibliographic data processed, the kinds of indexes constructed, and the ways in which the indexes are searched. No one configuration appiles to every library research project with equal efficacy or likelihood of satisfying queries. However, the rationale proposed can compare and evaluate alternative library computer catalogs in term of the library's understanding of the relationship between the library's collections and their use

0.12209346 = product of:
  0.18314019 = sum of:
    0.16038992 = weight(_text_:systematic in 1467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16038992 = score(doc=1467,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.5648098 = fieldWeight in 1467, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1467)
    0.022750268 = product of:
      0.045500536 = sum of:
        0.045500536 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045500536 = score(doc=1467,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.23924173 = fieldWeight in 1467, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1467)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Classaurus is a faceted hierarchic scheme of terms with vocabulary control features. It is a system of terms having separate hierarchic schedules of the elementary categories: discipline, entity, property and action, together with their respective species/types, parts and special modifiers. Also there are separate schedules for the common modifiers: form, time, environment, and place. Each of the terms in these hierarchic schedules is enriched with synonyms, quasi synonyms etc. The hierarchic schedules constituting the systematic part is supplemented by ab alphabetical index of chain entries. Classaurus is used in the formulation of subject headings in general, and in particular, subject headings according to the Postulate based Permuted Subject Indexing (POPSI) language. For the construction of classaurus the POPSI language itself provides guidelines. A set or programs have been developed to construct a classaurus using as input, subject headings formulated according to POPSI language which are enriches with certain codes to deniote the different elementary categories, their species, parts, special modifiers and other common modifiers of different kinds. The resulting classaurus has hierarchic schedules but terms in an array are arranged only alphabetically. The hierarchic schedules constitute the systematic part of the classaurus. The system generates an alphabetic index part to the systematic part, in which for each term its broader terms are kept to its right hand side successively along with a code to denote the schedule to which the term belongs. To find out the position of a term in the systematic part, the whole entry for the term in the alphabetic part is taken and the sequence of the terms in it is reversed. Using the code for the schedule in the entry, the appropriate hierarchic schedule is selected. The schedule is then searched using the broader terms successively as keys until the the term in question is reached, wherein all the hierarchically related terms could be found, including synonyms, quasi-synonyms etc. Both the systematic part and the alphabetical index part are printed out for manual reference and also kept as direct access files for on-line access and on-the-spot updating and building up of the classaurus while inputting new subject headings formulated for this purpose

0.11752635 = product of:
  0.17628953 = sum of:
    0.15215923 = weight(_text_:systematic in 1569) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15215923 = score(doc=1569,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.5358256 = fieldWeight in 1569, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1569)
    0.024130303 = product of:
      0.048260607 = sum of:
        0.048260607 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1569) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048260607 = score(doc=1569,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.2537542 = fieldWeight in 1569, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1569)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The second edition of the Bibliographic Classidication of H.E. Bliss (BC2), being prepared under the editorship of Jack Mills, Vanda Broughton and others, is a rich source of structure and terminology for thesauri covering different subject fields. The new edition employs facet analysis and is thesaurus-compatible. A number of facet-based thesauri have drawn upon Bliss for terms and relationships. In two of these thesauri the Bliss Classification was the source of both systematic and alphabetical displays. The DHSS-DATA thesaurus, published by the United Kingdom Department of Health and Social Security, provides controlled terms and Bliss class numbers for indexing and searching the DHSS-DATA database. The ECOT thesaurus (Educational courses and occupations thesaurus) prepared for the Department of Education and Science, uses the software sedigned for the British Standards Institution ROOT thesaurus to genearte an alphabetical display from the systematic display derived from the Bliss schedules. Problems, benefits, and future prospects of Bliss-based thesaurus construction are discussed

0.10245132 = product of:
  0.15367697 = sum of:
    0.12552495 = weight(_text_:systematic in 823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12552495 = score(doc=823,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.44203353 = fieldWeight in 823, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=823)
    0.02815202 = product of:
      0.05630404 = sum of:
        0.05630404 = weight(_text_:indexing in 823) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05630404 = score(doc=823,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.29604656 = fieldWeight in 823, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=823)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Connecting and evaluating thesauri is an important task for the systematic development of better information retrieval systems. Connecting thesauri includes not only determining when terms in different thesauri are the same but also determining what kinds of relationships can be transferred from one thesaurus to another. This paper first presents issues in connecting and evaluating thesauri. Various experiments in connecting a particular thesaurus, the Medical Subject Headings, with other medical thesauri are described. In these experiments, similar terms in two thesauri are recognized and then differences in two thesauri are exploited to create more powerful thesauri. Part of the evaluation requires the thesaurus to support automatic indexing and retrieving of documents

0.08620184 = product of:
  0.12930275 = sum of:
    0.10143948 = weight(_text_:systematic in 3636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10143948 = score(doc=3636,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.35721707 = fieldWeight in 3636, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3636)
    0.027863273 = product of:
      0.055726547 = sum of:
        0.055726547 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055726547 = score(doc=3636,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.2930101 = fieldWeight in 3636, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3636)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Brian C. Vickery, Director and Professor, School of Library, Archive and Information Studies, University College, London, is a prolific writer on classification and information retrieval. This paper was one of the earliest to present initial efforts by the Classification Research Group (q.v.). In it he clearly outlined the need for classification in subject indexing, which, at the time he wrote, was not a commonplace understanding. In fact, some indexing systems were made in the first place specifically to avoid general classification systems which were out of date in all fast-moving disciplines, especially in the "hard" sciences. Vickery picked up Julia Pettee's work (q.v.) an the concealed classification in subject headings (1947) and added to it, mainly adopting concepts from the work of S. R. Ranganathan (q.v.). He had already published a paper an notation in classification, pointing out connections between notation, words, and the concepts which they represent. He was especially concerned about the structure of notational symbols as such symbols represented relationships among subjects. Vickery also emphasized that index terms cover all aspects of a subject so that, in addition to having a basis in classification, the ideal index system should also have standardized nomenclature, as weIl as show evidence of a systematic classing of elementary terms. The necessary linkage between system and terms should be one of a number of methods, notably:

0.083683304 = product of:
  0.2510499 = sum of:
    0.2510499 = weight(_text_:systematic in 2475) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2510499 = score(doc=2475,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.88406706 = fieldWeight in 2475, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2475)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.083683304 = product of:
  0.2510499 = sum of:
    0.2510499 = weight(_text_:systematic in 202) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.2510499 = score(doc=202,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.88406706 = fieldWeight in 202, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=202)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.07172854 = product of:
  0.21518563 = sum of:
    0.21518563 = weight(_text_:systematic in 3359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21518563 = score(doc=3359,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.7577718 = fieldWeight in 3359, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3359)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.06895012 = product of:
  0.20685035 = sum of:
    0.20685035 = sum of:
      0.11260808 = weight(_text_:indexing in 7322) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11260808 = score(doc=7322,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049684696 = queryNorm
          0.5920931 = fieldWeight in 7322, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7322)
      0.09424227 = weight(_text_:22 in 7322) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09424227 = score(doc=7322,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049684696 = queryNorm
          0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 7322, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7322)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

International forum on information and documentation. 14(1989), S.17-22

0.066433966 = product of:
  0.09965095 = sum of:
    0.06339968 = weight(_text_:systematic in 3622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06339968 = score(doc=3622,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.22326067 = fieldWeight in 3622, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3622)
    0.036251266 = product of:
      0.07250253 = sum of:
        0.07250253 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3622) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07250253 = score(doc=3622,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.3812182 = fieldWeight in 3622, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3622)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Definition and Scope For the purpose of this reader, subject analysis is understood to encompass vocabulary structuring and subject indexing. Vocabulary structuring refers to the constructing of tools, such as classifications, subject heading lists, and thesauri, designed to facilitate the organization and retrieval of information. These tools, though called by different names, are similar in that they structure or control the basic vocabulary of a subject index language by 1) stipulating terms that may be used in the classing or indexing of documents and 2) displaying semantic relationships, such as hierarchy and synonymy, that obtain between these terms. They differ in the kinds of terms and relationships they recognize and in the manner in which these are displayed. Subject indexing refers to the application of a vocabulary, which may be more or less well structured, to indicate the content or aboutness of documents. Traditionally subject indexing limits its domain to only certain types of documents, such as passages within books (back-of-book indexing) or periodical articles, and the expression it uses to only certain types of strings, for example, descriptors or index terms as opposed to subject headings or class numbers. However, in a generalized and more modern sense, subject indexing refers to the indication of the theme or topic of any document, indeed any retrieval artifact, by any meaningful string of alphanumeric characters. The value of construing the meaning of subject analysis broadly is threefold: it permits comparing a variety of approaches to subject analysis; it permits generalizing about these approaches at a relatively high descriptive level, so that principles and objectives are shown in relief; and, most importantly perhaps, it permits a unified view of the traditional and information scientific approaches to subject analysis.

Content

Eine exzellente (und durch die Herausgeber kommentierte) Zusammenstellung und Wiedergabe folgender Originalbeiträge: CUTTER, C.A.: Subjects; DEWEY, M.: Decimal classification and relativ index: introduction; HOPWOOD, H.V.: Dewey expanded; HULME, E.W.: Principles of book classification; KAISER, J.O.: Systematic indexing; MARTEL, C.: Classification: a brief conspectus of present day library practice; BLISS, H.E.: A bibliographic classification: principles and definitions; RANGANATHAN, S.R.: Facet analysis: fundamental categories; PETTEE, J.: The subject approach to books and the development of the dictionary catalog; PETTEE, J.: Fundamental principles of the dictionary catalog; PETTEE, J.: Public libraries and libraries as purveyors of information; HAYKIN, D.J.: Subject headings: fundamental concepts; TAUBE, M.: Functional approach to bibliographic organization: a critique and a proposal; VICKERY, B.C.: Systematic subject indexing; FEIBLEMAN, J.K.: Theory of integrative levels; GARFIELD, E.: Citation indexes for science; CRG: The need for a faceted classification as the basis of all methods of information retrieval; LUHN, H.P.: Keyword-in-context index for technical literature; COATES, E.J.: Significance and term relationship in compound headings; FARRADANE, J.E.L.: Fundamental fallacies and new needs in classification; FOSKETT, D.J.: Classification and integrative levels; CLEVERDON, C.W. u. J. MILLS: The testing of index language devices; MOOERS, C.N.: The indexing language of an information retrieval system; NEEDHAM, R.M. u. K. SPARCK JONES: Keywords and clumps; ROLLING, L.: The role of graphic display of concept relationships in indexing and retrieval vocabularies; BORKO, H.: Research in computer based classification systems; WILSON, P.: Subjects and the sense of position; LANCASTER, F.W.: Evaluating the performance of a large computerized information system; SALTON, G.: Automatic processing of foreign language documents; FAIRTHORNE, R.A.: Temporal structure in bibliographic classification; AUSTIN, D. u. J.A. DIGGER: PRECIS: The Preserved Context Index System; FUGMANN, R.: The complementarity of natural and indexing languages

LCSH

Indexing / Addresses, essays, lectures

Subject

Indexing / Addresses, essays, lectures

0.06035575 = product of:
  0.18106724 = sum of:
    0.18106724 = sum of:
      0.11375134 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1653) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11375134 = score(doc=1653,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049684696 = queryNorm
          0.59810436 = fieldWeight in 1653, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1653)
      0.06731591 = weight(_text_:22 in 1653) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06731591 = score(doc=1653,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049684696 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 1653, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1653)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Describes the history and scope of the Royal Commonwealth Society's photographic collection, the approach to and working methods of cataloguing and indexing it, and the particular problems involved in maintaining a photographic collection, especially those of identification, dating, and conservation

Source

Indexer. 14(1984), S.15-22

0.04925008 = product of:
  0.14775024 = sum of:
    0.14775024 = sum of:
      0.08043434 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08043434 = score(doc=1952,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049684696 = queryNorm
          0.42292362 = fieldWeight in 1952, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1952)
      0.06731591 = weight(_text_:22 in 1952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06731591 = score(doc=1952,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049684696 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 1952, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1952)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

16. 8.1998 12:51:22

0.0482846 = product of:
  0.1448538 = sum of:
    0.1448538 = sum of:
      0.09100107 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09100107 = score(doc=2855,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049684696 = queryNorm
          0.47848347 = fieldWeight in 2855, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2855)
      0.053852726 = weight(_text_:22 in 2855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053852726 = score(doc=2855,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049684696 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2855, 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=2855)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The university libraries at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University began an innovative indexing method in 1985 with the objectives of stronger and easier subject access to local newspapers and the creation of an index which could store information compactly and economically. Discusses the decision to use Pro-Cite software and describes the creation of 10 area data base files. Outlines 2 areas of difficulty: documentation and terminology.

Date

30.11.1995 17:22:01

0.0482846 = product of:
  0.1448538 = sum of:
    0.1448538 = sum of:
      0.09100107 = weight(_text_:indexing in 217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09100107 = score(doc=217,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049684696 = queryNorm
          0.47848347 = fieldWeight in 217, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=217)
      0.053852726 = weight(_text_:22 in 217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.053852726 = score(doc=217,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17398734 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.049684696 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 217, 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=217)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 4.2007 10:07:51

LCSH

Indexing

Subject

Indexing

0.04781903 = product of:
  0.14345708 = sum of:
    0.14345708 = weight(_text_:systematic in 321) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14345708 = score(doc=321,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.5051812 = fieldWeight in 321, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=321)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper traces the history of the concept of intellectual level in cataloging and classification in the United States. Past cataloging codes, subject-heading practice, and classification systems have provided library users with little systematic information concerning the intellectual level or intended audience of works. Reasons for this omission are discussed, and arguments are developed to show that this kind of information would be a useful addition to the catalog record of the present and the future.

0.041841652 = product of:
  0.12552495 = sum of:
    0.12552495 = weight(_text_:systematic in 1410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12552495 = score(doc=1410,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.44203353 = fieldWeight in 1410, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1410)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Reports the results of a preliminary investigation of techniques of evaluation applied to information technology based communication systems such as: electronic mail; facsimile transmission (fax); voice mail; and teleconferencing. The aim of the study was to develop a methodology for the consistent and systematic evaluation of such systems using qualitative factors as the basis for the evaluation framework. Concludes that: there is no reported framework within the literature surveyed that deals adequately with the evaluation of information technolgy based communications systems; it is possible the generate evaluation methodologies that can be used consistently and systematically in decision making about information technology based communication systems; and substantial further work is rrequired to validate and develop the recommended methodologies

0.041841652 = product of:
  0.12552495 = sum of:
    0.12552495 = weight(_text_:systematic in 3552) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12552495 = score(doc=3552,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.44203353 = fieldWeight in 3552, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3552)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Although relevance judgements are fundamental to the design and evaluation of all information retrieval systems, information scientists have not reached a consensus in defining the central concept of relevance. Re-examines the viewpoints of major writers in the field, then introduces a new approach. Considers that relevance is a multidimensional concept; that it is based on the human judgement process; that it is dependant on both internal (cognitive) and external (situational) factors; and that it is intersubjective but nevertheless systematic and measurable. Suggests a different paradigm from the classic source-to-destination communication model of information retrieval.

0.041841652 = product of:
  0.12552495 = sum of:
    0.12552495 = weight(_text_:systematic in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12552495 = score(doc=343,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.44203353 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Bibliographic control does not differ in substance from one type of material to another. Therefore it is not possible to separate the bibliographic control of music materials entirely from the larger domain of bibliographic control activity. The literature of music librarianship is examined for relevant theoretical explanations. Specific problems of description and access are used to show that, in general, the requirements for bibliographic control of music fit neatly into the theoretical structure for all bibliographic control. The primary purpose of descriptive cataloging of musical objects is to identify and differentiate among objects in a library collection. Where the concept of responsibility is relevant, access is provided through the names of composers or performers. Systematic access is provided through co-equal facets: medium, manifestation, and form.