Search (210 results, page 1 of 11)

0.08289318 = product of:
  0.12433976 = sum of:
    0.0963466 = weight(_text_:interest in 2634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0963466 = score(doc=2634,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.38424414 = fieldWeight in 2634, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2634)
    0.027993156 = product of:
      0.05598631 = sum of:
        0.05598631 = weight(_text_:classification in 2634) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05598631 = score(doc=2634,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.34832728 = fieldWeight in 2634, 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=2634)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

A preliminary, purposive survey of definitions and current applications of facet analytical theory (FA) is used to develop a framework for the analysis of Websites. This set of guidelines may well serve to highlight commonalities and differences among FA applications an the Web. Rather than identifying FA as the terrain of a particular interest group, the goal is to explore current practices, uncover common misconceptions, extend understanding, and highlight developments that augment the traditional practice of FA and faceted classification (FC).

0.07253948 = product of:
  0.10880922 = sum of:
    0.068818994 = weight(_text_:interest in 2476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068818994 = score(doc=2476,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.27446008 = fieldWeight in 2476, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2476)
    0.039990224 = product of:
      0.07998045 = sum of:
        0.07998045 = weight(_text_:classification in 2476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07998045 = score(doc=2476,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.49761042 = fieldWeight in 2476, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2476)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Basic skills of classification and subject indexing have been little taught in British library schools since automation was introduced into libraries. However, development of the Internet as a major medium of publication has stretched the capability of search engines to cope with retrieval. Consequently, there has been interest in applying existing systems of knowledge organization to electronic resources. Unfortunately, the classification systems have been adopted without a full understanding of modern classification principles. Analytico-synthetic schemes have been used crudely, as in the case of the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC). The fully faceted Bliss Bibliographical Classification, 2nd edition (BC2) with its potential as a tool for electronic resource retrieval is virtually unknown outside academic libraries

Content

A short discussion of using classification systems to organize the web, one of many such. The authors are both involved with BC2 and naturally think it is the best system for organizing information online. They list reasons why faceted classifications are best (e.g. no theoretical limits to specificity or exhaustivity; easier to handle complex subjects; flexible enough to accommodate different user needs) and take a brief look at how BC2 works. They conclude with a discussion of how and why it should be applied to online resources, and a plea for recognition of the importance of classification and subject analysis skills, even when full-text searching is available and databases respond instantly.

0.071051285 = product of:
  0.10657693 = sum of:
    0.082582794 = weight(_text_:interest in 3532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.082582794 = score(doc=3532,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.3293521 = fieldWeight in 3532, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3532)
    0.023994135 = product of:
      0.04798827 = sum of:
        0.04798827 = weight(_text_:classification in 3532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04798827 = score(doc=3532,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.29856625 = fieldWeight in 3532, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3532)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

The Bliss Bibliographic Classification is the only example of a fully faceted general classification scheme in the Western world. Although it is the object of much interest as a model for other tools it suffers from the lack of a web presence, and remedying this is an immediate objective for its editors. Understanding how this might be done presents some challenges, as the scheme is semantically very rich and complex in the range and nature of the relationships it contains. The automatic management of these is already in place using local software, but exporting this to a common data format needs careful thought and planning. Various encoding schemes, both for traditional classifications, and for digital materials, represent variously: the concepts; their functional roles; and the relationships between them. Integrating these aspects in a coherent and interchangeable manner appears to be achievable, but the most appropriate format is as yet unclear.

0.066631086 = product of:
  0.19989325 = sum of:
    0.19989325 = sum of:
      0.09048755 = weight(_text_:classification in 7684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09048755 = score(doc=7684,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = queryNorm
          0.5629819 = fieldWeight in 7684, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=7684)
      0.109405704 = weight(_text_:22 in 7684) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.109405704 = score(doc=7684,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = queryNorm
          0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 7684, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=7684)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Journal of academic librarianship. 10(1984), S.17-22

0.060496002 = product of:
  0.181488 = sum of:
    0.181488 = sum of:
      0.11310943 = weight(_text_:classification in 3576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11310943 = score(doc=3576,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = queryNorm
          0.70372736 = fieldWeight in 3576, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3576)
      0.06837857 = weight(_text_:22 in 3576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06837857 = score(doc=3576,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = queryNorm
          0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 3576, 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=3576)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Classification structure and indexes to classifications need to be better understood before classification can be a major access point in online catalogs.

Date

8. 1.2007 12:22:40

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 11(1990) no.1, S.99-102

0.055305116 = product of:
  0.08295767 = sum of:
    0.068818994 = weight(_text_:interest in 2478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068818994 = score(doc=2478,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.27446008 = fieldWeight in 2478, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2478)
    0.014138679 = product of:
      0.028277358 = sum of:
        0.028277358 = weight(_text_:classification in 2478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028277358 = score(doc=2478,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 2478, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2478)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Three pre-web articles about using hypertext for knowledge representation. Duncan discusses how to use graphical, hypertext displays (she used Xerox PARC's NoteCards on a Xerox 1186 workstation) along with concept maps and facet analysis, a combination that would now be done with topic maps. The screen shots of her graphical displays are quite interesting. Her interest in facets is in how to use them to show things to different people in different ways, for example, so that experts can enter knowledge into a system in one way while novices can see it in another. Duncan found that facet labels (e.g. Process and Product) prompted the expert to think of related concepts when inputting data, and made navigation easier for users. Facets can be joined together, e.g. "Agents (causing) Process," leading to a "reasoning system." She is especially interested in how to show relstionships between two things: e.g., A causes B, A uses B, A occurs in B. This is an important question in facet theory, but probably not worth worrying about in a small online classification where the relations are fixed and obvious. These articles may be difficult to find, in which case the reader can find a nice sumary in the next article, by Ellis and Vasconcelos (2000). Anyone interested in tracing the history of facets and hypertext will, however, want to see the originals.

0.055305116 = product of:
  0.08295767 = sum of:
    0.068818994 = weight(_text_:interest in 2480) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068818994 = score(doc=2480,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.27446008 = fieldWeight in 2480, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2480)
    0.014138679 = product of:
      0.028277358 = sum of:
        0.028277358 = weight(_text_:classification in 2480) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028277358 = score(doc=2480,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 2480, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2480)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Three pre-web articles about using hypertext for knowledge representation. Duncan discusses how to use graphical, hypertext displays (she used Xerox PARC's NoteCards on a Xerox 1186 workstation) along with concept maps and facet analysis, a combination that would now be done with topic maps. The screen shots of her graphical displays are quite interesting. Her interest in facets is in how to use them to show things to different people in different ways, for example, so that experts can enter knowledge into a system in one way while novices can see it in another. Duncan found that facet labels (e.g. Process and Product) prompted the expert to think of related concepts when inputting data, and made navigation easier for users. Facets can be joined together, e.g. "Agents (causing) Process," leading to a "reasoning system." She is especially interested in how to show relstionships between two things: e.g., A causes B, A uses B, A occurs in B. This is an important question in facet theory, but probably not worth worrying about in a small online classification where the relations are fixed and obvious. These articles may be difficult to find, in which case the reader can find a nice sumary in the next article, by Ellis and Vasconcelos (2000). Anyone interested in tracing the history of facets and hypertext will, however, want to see the originals.

0.055305116 = product of:
  0.08295767 = sum of:
    0.068818994 = weight(_text_:interest in 2481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068818994 = score(doc=2481,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.27446008 = fieldWeight in 2481, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2481)
    0.014138679 = product of:
      0.028277358 = sum of:
        0.028277358 = weight(_text_:classification in 2481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028277358 = score(doc=2481,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 2481, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2481)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

Three pre-web articles about using hypertext for knowledge representation. Duncan discusses how to use graphical, hypertext displays (she used Xerox PARC's NoteCards on a Xerox 1186 workstation) along with concept maps and facet analysis, a combination that would now be done with topic maps. The screen shots of her graphical displays are quite interesting. Her interest in facets is in how to use them to show things to different people in different ways, for example, so that experts can enter knowledge into a system in one way while novices can see it in another. Duncan found that facet labels (e.g. Process and Product) prompted the expert to think of related concepts when inputting data, and made navigation easier for users. Facets can be joined together, e.g. "Agents (causing) Process," leading to a "reasoning system." She is especially interested in how to show relstionships between two things: e.g., A causes B, A uses B, A occurs in B. This is an important question in facet theory, but probably not worth worrying about in a small online classification where the relations are fixed and obvious. These articles may be difficult to find, in which case the reader can find a nice sumary in the next article, by Ellis and Vasconcelos (2000). Anyone interested in tracing the history of facets and hypertext will, however, want to see the originals.

0.049973316 = product of:
  0.14991994 = sum of:
    0.14991994 = sum of:
      0.06786566 = weight(_text_:classification in 6040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06786566 = score(doc=6040,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = queryNorm
          0.42223644 = fieldWeight in 6040, 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=6040)
      0.08205428 = weight(_text_:22 in 6040) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08205428 = score(doc=6040,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = queryNorm
          0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6040, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6040)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:42:47

0.047367524 = product of:
  0.071051285 = sum of:
    0.055055197 = weight(_text_:interest in 26) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055055197 = score(doc=26,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.21956807 = fieldWeight in 26, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=26)
    0.01599609 = product of:
      0.03199218 = sum of:
        0.03199218 = weight(_text_:classification in 26) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03199218 = score(doc=26,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.19904417 = fieldWeight in 26, 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=26)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

We live in an information age that requires us, more than ever, to represent, access, and use information. Over the last several decades, we have developed a modern science and technology for information retrieval, relentlessly pursuing the vision of a "memex" that Vannevar Bush proposed in his seminal article, "As We May Think." Faceted search plays a key role in this program. Faceted search addresses weaknesses of conventional search approaches and has emerged as a foundation for interactive information retrieval. User studies demonstrate that faceted search provides more effective information-seeking support to users than best-first search. Indeed, faceted search has become increasingly prevalent in online information access systems, particularly for e-commerce and site search. In this lecture, we explore the history, theory, and practice of faceted search. Although we cannot hope to be exhaustive, our aim is to provide sufficient depth and breadth to offer a useful resource to both researchers and practitioners. Because faceted search is an area of interest to computer scientists, information scientists, interface designers, and usability researchers, we do not assume that the reader is a specialist in any of these fields. Rather, we offer a self-contained treatment of the topic, with an extensive bibliography for those who would like to pursue particular aspects in more depth.

LCSH

Faceted classification / Research

Subject

Faceted classification / Research

0.04546238 = product of:
  0.13638714 = sum of:
    0.13638714 = sum of:
      0.08852214 = weight(_text_:classification in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08852214 = score(doc=2509,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = queryNorm
          0.55075383 = fieldWeight in 2509, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2509)
      0.047864996 = weight(_text_:22 in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047864996 = score(doc=2509,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2509, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2509)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Edited version of a report to the Australian Library and Information Association on the Conference on classification theory in the computer age, Albany, New York, 18-19 Nov 88, and on the meeting of the Dewey Editorial Policy Committee which preceded it. The focus of the Editorial Policy Committee Meeting lay in the following areas: browsing; potential for improved subject access; system design; potential conflict between shelf location and information retrieval; and users. At the Conference on classification theory in the computer age the following papers were presented: Applications of artificial intelligence to bibliographic classification, by Irene Travis; Automation and classification, By Elaine Svenonious; Subject classification and language processing for retrieval in large data bases, by Diana Scott; Implications for information processing, by Carol Mandel; and implications for information science education, by Richard Halsey.

Date

8.11.1995 11:52:22

0.039562404 = product of:
  0.11868721 = sum of:
    0.11868721 = sum of:
      0.06398436 = weight(_text_:classification in 2871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06398436 = score(doc=2871,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = queryNorm
          0.39808834 = fieldWeight in 2871, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2871)
      0.054702852 = weight(_text_:22 in 2871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054702852 = score(doc=2871,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2871, 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=2871)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This is a report on how Doyle and others made a faceted classification scheme for content management systems and made it browsable on the web (see CMS Review in Example Web Sites, below). They discuss why they did it, how, their use of OPML and XFML, how they did research to find terms and categories, and they also include their taxonomy. It is interesting to see facets used in a business environment.

Date

30. 7.2004 12:22:52

0.038967755 = product of:
  0.11690326 = sum of:
    0.11690326 = sum of:
      0.07587612 = weight(_text_:classification in 2464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07587612 = score(doc=2464,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = 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)
      0.04102714 = weight(_text_:22 in 2464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04102714 = score(doc=2464,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.03881132 = product of:
  0.11643395 = sum of:
    0.11643395 = sum of:
      0.06856895 = weight(_text_:classification in 1673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06856895 = score(doc=1673,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = queryNorm
          0.42661208 = fieldWeight in 1673, 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=1673)
      0.047864996 = weight(_text_:22 in 1673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047864996 = score(doc=1673,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1673, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1673)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The Wolverhampton Web Library (WWLib) is a WWW search engine that provides access to UK based information. The experimental version developed in 1995, was a success but highlighted the need for a much higher degree of automation. An interesting feature of the experimental WWLib was that it organised information according to DDC. Discusses the advantages of classification and describes the automatic classifier that is being developed in Java as part of the new, fully automated WWLib

Date

1. 8.1996 22:08:06

0.03540881 = product of:
  0.053113215 = sum of:
    0.034409497 = weight(_text_:interest in 2467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034409497 = score(doc=2467,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25074318 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05046903 = queryNorm
        0.13723004 = fieldWeight in 2467, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.9682584 = idf(docFreq=835, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2467)
    0.018703716 = product of:
      0.03740743 = sum of:
        0.03740743 = weight(_text_:classification in 2467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03740743 = score(doc=2467,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05046903 = queryNorm
            0.23273596 = fieldWeight in 2467, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2467)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Abstract

This is a classified, annotated bibliography about how to design faceted classification systems and make them usable on the World Wide Web. It is the first of three works I will be doing. The second, based on the material here and elsewhere, will discuss how to actually make the faceted system and put it online. The third will be a report of how I did just that, what worked, what didn't, and what I learned. Almost every article or book listed here begins with an explanation of what a faceted classification system is, so I won't (but see Steckel in Background below if you don't already know). They all agree that faceted systems are very appropriate for the web. Even pre-web articles (such as Duncan's in Background, below) assert that hypertext and facets will go together well. Combined, it is possible to take a set of documents and classify them or apply subject headings to describe what they are about, then build a navigational structure so that any user, no matter how he or she approaches the material, no matter what his or her goals, can move and search in a way that makes sense to them, but still get to the same useful results as someone else following a different path to the same goal. There is no one way that everyone will always use when looking for information. The more flexible the organization of the information, the more accommodating it is. Facets are more flexible for hypertext browsing than any enumerative or hierarchical system.
Consider movie listings in newspapers. Most Canadian newspapers list movie showtimes in two large blocks, for the two major theatre chains. The listings are ordered by region (in large cities), then theatre, then movie, and finally by showtime. Anyone wondering where and when a particular movie is playing must scan the complete listings. Determining what movies are playing in the next half hour is very difficult. When movie listings went onto the web, most sites used a simple faceted organization, always with movie name and theatre, and perhaps with region or neighbourhood (thankfully, theatre chains were left out). They make it easy to pick a theatre and see what movies are playing there, or to pick a movie and see what theatres are showing it. To complete the system, the sites should allow users to browse by neighbourhood and showtime, and to order the results in any way they desired. Thus could people easily find answers to such questions as, "Where is the new James Bond movie playing?" "What's showing at the Roxy tonight?" "I'm going to be out in in Little Finland this afternoon with three hours to kill starting at 2 ... is anything interesting playing?" A hypertext, faceted classification system makes more useful information more easily available to the user. Reading the books and articles below in chronological order will show a certain progression: suggestions that faceting and hypertext might work well, confidence that facets would work well if only someone would make such a system, and finally the beginning of serious work on actually designing, building, and testing faceted web sites. There is a solid basis of how to make faceted classifications (see Vickery in Recommended), but their application online is just starting. Work on XFML (see Van Dijck's work in Recommended) the Exchangeable Faceted Metadata Language, will make this easier. If it follows previous patterns, parts of the Internet community will embrace the idea and make open source software available for others to reuse. It will be particularly beneficial if professionals in both information studies and computer science can work together to build working systems, standards, and code. Each can benefit from the other's expertise in what can be a very complicated and technical area. One particularly nice thing about this area of research is that people interested in combining facets and the web often have web sites where they post their writings.
This bibliography is not meant to be exhaustive, but unfortunately it is not as complete as I wanted. Some books and articles are not be included, but they may be used in my future work. (These include two books and one article by B.C. Vickery: Faceted Classification Schemes (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers, 1966), Classification and Indexing in Science, 3rd ed. (London: Butterworths, 1975), and "Knowledge Representation: A Brief Review" (Journal of Documentation 42 no. 3 (September 1986): 145-159; and A.C. Foskett's "The Future of Faceted Classification" in The Future of Classification, edited by Rita Marcella and Arthur Maltby (Aldershot, England: Gower, 2000): 69-80). Nevertheless, I hope this bibliography will be useful for those both new to or familiar with faceted hypertext systems. Some very basic resources are listed, as well as some very advanced ones. Some example web sites are mentioned, but there is no detailed technical discussion of any software. The user interface to any web site is extremely important, and this is briefly mentioned in two or three places (for example the discussion of lawforwa.org (see Example Web Sites)). The larger question of how to display information graphically and with hypertext is outside the scope of this bibliography. There are five sections: Recommended, Background, Not Relevant, Example Web Sites, and Mailing Lists. Background material is either introductory, advanced, or of peripheral interest, and can be read after the Recommended resources if the reader wants to know more. The Not Relevant category contains articles that may appear in bibliographies but are not relevant for my purposes.

0.035336472 = product of:
  0.10600941 = sum of:
    0.10600941 = sum of:
      0.04798827 = weight(_text_:classification in 4379) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04798827 = score(doc=4379,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = queryNorm
          0.29856625 = fieldWeight in 4379, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4379)
      0.058021143 = weight(_text_:22 in 4379) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.058021143 = score(doc=4379,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = queryNorm
          0.32829654 = fieldWeight in 4379, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4379)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Am 29. und 30. Oktober 2009 fand in der Königlichen Bibliothek in Den Haag das zweite internationale UDC-Seminar zum Thema "Classification at a Crossroad" statt. Organisiert wurde diese Konferenz - wie auch die erste Konferenz dieser Art im Jahr 2007 - vom UDC-Konsortium (UDCC). Im Mittelpunkt der diesjährigen Veranstaltung stand die Erschließung des World Wide Web unter besserer Nutzung von Klassifikationen (im Besonderen natürlich der UDC), einschließlich benutzerfreundlicher Repräsentationen von Informationen und Wissen. Standards, neue Technologien und Dienste, semantische Suche und der multilinguale Zugriff spielten ebenfalls eine Rolle. 135 Teilnehmer aus 35 Ländern waren dazu nach Den Haag gekommen. Das Programm umfasste mit 22 Vorträgen aus 14 verschiedenen Ländern eine breite Palette, wobei Großbritannien mit fünf Beiträgen am stärksten vertreten war. Die Tagesschwerpunkte wurden an beiden Konferenztagen durch die Eröffnungsvorträge gesetzt, die dann in insgesamt sechs thematischen Sitzungen weiter vertieft wurden.

Date

22. 1.2010 15:06:54

0.034617104 = product of:
  0.1038513 = sum of:
    0.1038513 = sum of:
      0.05598631 = weight(_text_:classification in 2342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05598631 = score(doc=2342,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = queryNorm
          0.34832728 = fieldWeight in 2342, 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=2342)
      0.047864996 = weight(_text_:22 in 2342) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047864996 = score(doc=2342,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2342, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2342)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The knowledge structures that form traditional library classification schemes hold great potential for improving resource description and discovery on the Internet and for organizing electronic document collections. The advantages of assigning subject tokens (classes) to documents from a scheme like the DDC system are well documented

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

0.034617104 = product of:
  0.1038513 = sum of:
    0.1038513 = sum of:
      0.05598631 = weight(_text_:classification in 88) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05598631 = score(doc=88,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = queryNorm
          0.34832728 = fieldWeight in 88, 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=88)
      0.047864996 = weight(_text_:22 in 88) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047864996 = score(doc=88,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 88, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=88)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper presents a study conducted at the University of Colorado at Boulder (CU-Boulder) to assess the extent to which its catalogers were using Classification Web (Class Web), the subscription-based, online cataloging documentation resource provided by the Library of Congress. In addition, this paper will explore assumptions made by management regarding CU-Boulder catalogers' use of the product, possible reasons for the lower-than-expected use, and recommendations for promoting a more efficient and cost-effective use of Class Web at other institutions similar to CU-Boulder.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.033315543 = product of:
  0.099946626 = sum of:
    0.099946626 = sum of:
      0.045243774 = weight(_text_:classification in 4869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.045243774 = score(doc=4869,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = queryNorm
          0.28149095 = fieldWeight in 4869, 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=4869)
      0.054702852 = weight(_text_:22 in 4869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054702852 = score(doc=4869,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4869, 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=4869)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This article gives an overview of the design and organisation of DutchESS, a Dutch information subject gateway created as a national collaborative effort of the National Library and a number of academic libraries. The combined centralised and distributed model of DutchESS is discussed, as well as its selection policy, its metadata format, classification scheme and retrieval options. Also some options for future collaboration on an international level are explored

Date

22. 6.2002 19:39:23

0.033266842 = product of:
  0.09980053 = sum of:
    0.09980053 = sum of:
      0.058773387 = weight(_text_:classification in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.058773387 = score(doc=780,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.16072905 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = queryNorm
          0.3656675 = fieldWeight in 780, 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=780)
      0.04102714 = weight(_text_:22 in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04102714 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17673394 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05046903 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 780, 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=780)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Networked orientated standards for vocabulary publishing and exchange and proposals for terminological services and terminology registries will improve sharing and use of all knowledge organization systems in the networked information environment. This means that documentary classifications may also become more applicable for use outside their original domain of application. The paper summarises some characteristics common to documentary classifications and explains some terminological, functional and implementation aspects. The original purpose behind each classification scheme determines the functions that the vocabulary is designed to facilitate. These functions influence the structure, semantics and syntax, scheme coverage and format in which classification data are published and made available. The author suggests that attention should be paid to the differences between documentary classifications as these may determine their suitability for a certain purpose and may impose different requirements with respect to their use online. As we speak, many classifications are being created for knowledge organization and it may be important to promote expertise from the bibliographic domain with respect to building and using classification systems.

Date

22.12.2007 17:22:31