Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.020274874 = product of:
  0.06082462 = sum of:
    0.06082462 = weight(_text_:citation in 5895) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06082462 = score(doc=5895,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.25904894 = fieldWeight in 5895, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5895)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Broughton is one of the key people working on the second edition of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification (BC2). Her article has a brief, informative history of facets, then discusses semantic vs. syntactic relationships, standard facets used by Ranganathan and the Classification Research Group, facet analysis and citation order, and how to build subject indexes out of faceted classifications, all with occasional reference to digital environments and hypertext, but never with any specifics. It concludes by saying of faceted classification that the "capacity which it has to create highly sophisticated structures for the accommodation of complex objects suggests that it is worth investigation as an organizational tool for digital materials, and that the results of such investigation would be knowledge structures of unparalleled utility and elegance." How to build them is left to the reader, but this article provides an excellent starting point. It includes an example that shows how general concepts can be applied to a small set of documents and subjects, and how terms can be adapted to suit the material and users

0.020274874 = product of:
  0.06082462 = sum of:
    0.06082462 = weight(_text_:citation in 4065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06082462 = score(doc=4065,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.25904894 = fieldWeight in 4065, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4065)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Recent revision of UDC classes has aimed at implementing a more faceted approach. Many compound classes have been removed from the main tables, and more radical revisions of classes (particularly those for Medicine and Religion) have introduced a rigorous analysis, a clearer sense of citation order, and building of compound classes according to a more logical system syntax. The faceted approach provides a means of formalizing the relationships in the classification and making them explicit for machine recognition. In the Bliss Bibliographic Classification (BC2) (which has been a source for both UDC classes mentioned above), terminologies are encoded for automatic generation of hierarchical and associative relationships. Nevertheless, difficulties are encountered in vocabulary control, and a similar phenomenon is observed in UDC. Current work has revealed differences in the vocabulary of humanities and science, notably the way in which terms in the humanities should be handled when these are semantically complex. Achieving a balance between rigour in the structure of the classification and the complexity of natural language expression remains partially unresolved at present, but provides a fertile field for further research.

0.013567999 = product of:
  0.040703997 = sum of:
    0.040703997 = product of:
      0.081407994 = sum of:
        0.081407994 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081407994 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6048, 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=6048)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:41:14

0.012449317 = product of:
  0.03734795 = sum of:
    0.03734795 = product of:
      0.0746959 = sum of:
        0.0746959 = weight(_text_:index in 96) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0746959 = score(doc=96,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.3413878 = fieldWeight in 96, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=96)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The paper looks at ways in which traditional classification and indexing tools have dealt with the relationships between constituent terms; variations in these are examined and compared with the methods used in machine searching, particularly of the Internet and World Wide Web. Apparent correspondences with features of index languages are identified, and further methods of applying classification and indexing theory to machine retrieval are proposed. There are various ways in which indexing and retrieval systems, both conventional and electronic, deal with the problem of searching for documents on a subject basis, and various approaches to the analysis and processing of a query. There appear to be three basic models; the taxonomic or structural system, in which the user is offered a map of the `universe of knowledge'; the language based system, which offers a vocabulary of the subject and a grammar for dealing with compound statements; and the mathematical model using the language of symbolic logic or the algebra of set theory

0.0081099495 = product of:
  0.024329849 = sum of:
    0.024329849 = weight(_text_:citation in 2924) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024329849 = score(doc=2924,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.103619576 = fieldWeight in 2924, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2924)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

In den stärker ins Detail gehenden Kapiteln weist Broughton zunächst auf die Bedeutung des systematischen Teils eines Thesaurus neben dem alphabetischen Teil hin und erläutert dann die Elemente des letzteren, wobei neben den gängigen Thesaurusrelationen auch die Option der Ausstattung der Einträge mit Notationen eines Klassifikationssystems erwähnt wird. Die Thesaurusrelationen selbst werden später noch in einem weiteren Kapitel ausführlicher diskutiert, wobei etwa auch die polyhierarchische Beziehung thematisiert wird. Zwei Kapitel zur Vokabularkontrolle führen in Aspekte wie Behandlung von Synonymen, Vermeidung von Mehrdeutigkeit, Wahl der bevorzugten Terme sowie die Formen von Thesauruseinträgen ein (grammatische Form, Schreibweise, Zeichenvorrat, Singular/Plural, Komposita bzw. deren Zerlegung usw.). Insgesamt acht Kapitel - in der Abfolge mit den bisher erwähnten Abschnitten didaktisch geschickt vermischt - stehen unter dem Motto "Building a thesaurus". Kurz zusammengefasst, geht es dabei um folgende Tätigkeiten und Prozesse: - Sammlung des Vokabulars unter Nutzung entsprechender Quellen; - Termextraktion aus den Titeln von Dokumenten und Probleme hiebei; - Analyse des Vokabulars (Facettenmethode); - Einbau einer internen Struktur (Facetten und Sub-Facetten, Anordnung der Terme); - Erstellung einer hierarchischen Struktur und deren Repräsentation; - Zusammengesetzte Themen bzw. Begriffe (Facettenanordnung: filing order vs. citation order); - Konvertierung der taxonomischen Anordnung in ein alphabetisches Format (Auswahl der Vorzugsbegriffe, Identifizieren hierarchischer Beziehungen, verwandter Begriffe usw.); - Erzeugen der endgültigen Thesaurus-Einträge.

0.007914666 = product of:
  0.023743998 = sum of:
    0.023743998 = product of:
      0.047487997 = sum of:
        0.047487997 = weight(_text_:22 in 2550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047487997 = score(doc=2550,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2550, 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=2550)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

9. 2.1997 18:44:22

0.0067839995 = product of:
  0.020351999 = sum of:
    0.020351999 = product of:
      0.040703997 = sum of:
        0.040703997 = weight(_text_:22 in 6392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040703997 = score(doc=6392,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 6392, 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=6392)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

10. 8.2001 13:22:14

0.0035211982 = product of:
  0.010563594 = sum of:
    0.010563594 = product of:
      0.021127189 = sum of:
        0.021127189 = weight(_text_:index in 2824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021127189 = score(doc=2824,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.09655905 = fieldWeight in 2824, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2824)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Essential Classification is also an exercise book. Indeed, it contains a number of practical exercises and activities in every chapter, along with suggested answers. Unfortunately, the answers are too often provided without the justifications and explanations that students would no doubt demand. The author has taken great care to explain all technical terms in her text, but formal definitions are also gathered in an extensive 172-term Glossary; appropriately, these terms appear in bold type the first time they are used in the text. A short, very short, annotated bibliography of standard classification textbooks and of manuals for the use of major classification schemes is provided. A detailed 11-page index completes the set of learning aids which will be useful to an audience of students in their effort to grasp the basic concepts of the theory and the practice of document classification in a traditional environment. Essential Classification is a fine textbook. However, this reviewer deplores the fact that it presents only a very "traditional" view of classification, without much reference to newer environments such as the Internet where classification also manifests itself in various forms. In Essential Classification, books are always used as examples, and we have to take the author's word that traditional classification practices and tools can also be applied to other types of documents and elsewhere than in the traditional library. Vanda Broughton writes, for example, that "Subject headings can't be used for physical arrangement" (p. 101), but this is not entirely true. Subject headings can be used for physical arrangement of vertical files, for example, with each folder bearing a simple or complex heading which is then used for internal organization. And if it is true that subject headings cannot be reproduced an the spine of [physical] books (p. 93), the situation is certainly different an the World Wide Web where subject headings as metadata can be most useful in ordering a collection of hot links. The emphasis is also an the traditional paperbased, rather than an the electronic version of classification schemes, with excellent justifications of course. The reality is, however, that supporting organizations (LC, OCLC, etc.) are now providing great quality services online, and that updates are now available only in an electronic format and not anymore on paper. E-based versions of classification schemes could be safely ignored in a theoretical text, but they have to be described and explained in a textbook published in 2005. One last comment: Professor Broughton tends to use the same term, "classification" to represent the process (as in classification is grouping) and the tool (as in constructing a classification, using a classification, etc.). Even in the Glossary where classification is first well-defined as a process, and classification scheme as "a set of classes ...", the definition of classification scheme continues: "the classification consists of a vocabulary (...) and syntax..." (p. 296-297). Such an ambiguous use of the term classification seems unfortunate and unnecessarily confusing in an otherwise very good basic textbook an categorization of concepts and subjects, document organization and subject representation."