Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

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

0.023909515 = product of:
  0.07172854 = sum of:
    0.07172854 = weight(_text_:systematic in 3621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07172854 = score(doc=3621,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.28397155 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.049684696 = queryNorm
        0.2525906 = fieldWeight in 3621, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.715473 = idf(docFreq=395, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3621)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Original in: Bliss, H.E.: A bibliographic classification extended by systematic auxuliary schedules for composite specification and notation. vols 1-2. 2nd ed. New York: Wilson 1952. S.3-11.

0.0075834226 = product of:
  0.022750268 = sum of:
    0.022750268 = product of:
      0.045500536 = sum of:
        0.045500536 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045500536 = score(doc=3626,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.23924173 = fieldWeight in 3626, 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=3626)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

One of the earliest works on the theory of classification appeared in a series of six chapters an the "Principles of Book Classification" published between October 1911 and May 1912 in the Library Association Record. In this publication, the author, E. Wyndham Hulme (1859-1954) whose career included twenty-five years as Librarian of the British Patent Office, set forth the fundamentals of classification as manifested in both the classed and the alphabetical catalogs. The work and the ideas contained therein have largely been forgotten. However, one phrase stands out and has been used frequently in the discussions of classification and indexing, particularly in reference to systems such as Library of Congress Classification, Dewey Decimal Classification, and Library of Congress Subject Headings. That phrase is "literary warrant"-meaning that the basis for classification is to be found in the actual published literature rather than abstract philosophical ideas or concepts in the universe of knowledge or the "order of nature and system of the sciences." To the extent that classification and indexing systems should be based upon existing literature rather than the universe of human knowledge, the concept of "literary warrant" defines systems used in library and information services, as distinguished from a purely philosophical classification. Library classification attempts to classify library materials-the records of knowledge-rather than knowledge itself; the establishment of a class or a heading for a subject is based an existing literature treating that subject. The following excerpt contains Hulme's definition of "literary warrant." Hulme first rejects the notion of using "the nature of the subject matter to be divided" as the basis for establishing headings, then he proceeds to propose the use of "literary warrant," that is, "an accurate survey and measurement of classes in literature," as the determinant.

0.0075834226 = product of:
  0.022750268 = sum of:
    0.022750268 = product of:
      0.045500536 = sum of:
        0.045500536 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045500536 = score(doc=3629,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.23924173 = fieldWeight in 3629, 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=3629)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

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

0.00536229 = product of:
  0.016086869 = sum of:
    0.016086869 = product of:
      0.032173738 = sum of:
        0.032173738 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032173738 = score(doc=3628,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.16916946 = fieldWeight in 3628, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3628)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

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

0.0046920036 = product of:
  0.01407601 = sum of:
    0.01407601 = product of:
      0.02815202 = sum of:
        0.02815202 = weight(_text_:indexing in 3631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02815202 = score(doc=3631,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.14802328 = fieldWeight in 3631, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3631)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The Colon Classification has not been widely adopted; however, the theory of facet analysis and synthesis Ranganathan developed has proved to be most influential. Although many theorists of subject analysis do not totally agree with his fundamental categories or citation order, Ranganathan's concept of facet analysis and synthesis has provided a viable method and a framework for approaching subject analysis and has become the foundation of subject analysis in the twentieth century. In this sense, his theory laid the groundwork for later investigations and inquiries into the nature of subject and classificatory categories and citation order. His influence is felt in all modern classification schemes and indexing systems. This is attested to by the citations to his ideas and works in numerous papers included in this collection and by the fact that other modern classification systems such as the Dewey Decimal Classification and the Bliss Bibliographic Classification have become increasingly faceted in recent editions. The following chapter from Elements of Library Classification represents one of Ranganathan's many expositions of facet analysis and fundamental categories. It is chosen because of its clarity of expression and comprehensibility (many readers find the majority of his writings difficult to understand).