Search (41 results, page 1 of 3)

0.062227696 = product of:
  0.093341544 = sum of:
    0.072989546 = weight(_text_:citation in 2464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.072989546 = score(doc=2464,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.31085873 = fieldWeight in 2464, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2464)
    0.020351999 = product of:
      0.040703997 = sum of:
        0.040703997 = weight(_text_:22 in 2464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040703997 = score(doc=2464,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

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

0.05443237 = product of:
  0.1632971 = sum of:
    0.1632971 = sum of:
      0.1293771 = weight(_text_:index in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.1293771 = score(doc=1418,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050071523 = queryNorm
          0.591301 = fieldWeight in 1418, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1418)
      0.03392 = weight(_text_:22 in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03392 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050071523 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1418, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1418)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Categories, or concepts of high generality representing the most basic kinds of entities in the world, have long been understood to be a fundamental element in the construction of knowledge organization systems (KOSs), particularly faceted ones. Commentators on facet analysis have tended to foreground the role of categories in the structuring of controlled vocabularies and the construction of compound index terms, and the implications of this for subject representation and information retrieval. Less attention has been paid to the variety of ways in which categories can shape the overall architectonic framework of a KOS. This case study explores the range of functions that categories took in structuring various aspects of an early analytico-synthetic KOS, Julius Otto Kaiser's method of Systematic Indexing (SI). Within SI, categories not only functioned as mechanisms to partition an index vocabulary into smaller groupings of terms and as elements in the construction of compound index terms but also served as means of defining the units of indexing, or index items, incorporated into an index; determining the organization of card index files and the articulation of the guide card system serving as a navigational aids thereto; and setting structural constraints to the establishment of cross-references between terms. In all these ways, Kaiser's system of categories contributed to the general systematicity of SI.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.048659697 = product of:
  0.14597909 = sum of:
    0.14597909 = weight(_text_:citation in 2804) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14597909 = score(doc=2804,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.62171745 = fieldWeight in 2804, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2804)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.036205303 = product of:
  0.108615905 = sum of:
    0.108615905 = sum of:
      0.0746959 = weight(_text_:index in 2282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0746959 = score(doc=2282,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050071523 = queryNorm
          0.3413878 = fieldWeight in 2282, 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=2282)
      0.03392 = weight(_text_:22 in 2282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03392 = score(doc=2282,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050071523 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2282, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2282)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The structure of a classification system contributes in a variety of ways to representing semantic relationships between its topics in the context of subject authority control. We explore this claim using the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system as a case study. The DDC links its classes into a notational hierarchy, supplemented by a network of relationships between topics, expressed in class descriptions and in the Relative Index (RI). Topics/subjects are expressed both by the natural language text of the caption and notes (including Manual notes) in a class description and by the controlled vocabulary of the RI's alphabetic index, which shows where topics are treated in the classificatory structure. The expression of relationships between topics depends on paradigmatic and syntagmatic relationships between natural language terms in captions, notes, and RI terms; on the meaning of specific note types; and on references recorded between RI terms. The specific means used in the DDC for capturing hierarchical (including disciplinary), equivalence and associative relationships are surveyed.

Date

8.11.2015 21:27:22

0.024581982 = product of:
  0.07374594 = sum of:
    0.07374594 = weight(_text_:citation in 3631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07374594 = score(doc=3631,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.31408018 = fieldWeight in 3631, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3631)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Among the theorists in the field of subject analysis in the twentieth century, none has been more influential than S. R. Ranganathan (1892-1972) of India, a mathematician by training who turned to librarianship and made some of the most far-reaching contributions to the theory of librarianship in general and subject analysis in particular. Dissatisfied with both the Dewey Decimal Classification and the Universal Decimal Classification, Ranganathan set out to develop his own system. His Colon Classification was first published in 1933 and went through six editions; the seventh edition was in progress when Ranganathan died in 1972. In the course of developing the Colon Classification, Ranganathan formulated a body of classification theory which was published in numerous writings, of which the best known are Elements of Library Classification (1945; 3rd ed., 1962) and Prolegomena to Library Classification (1967). Among the principles Ranganathan established, the most powerful and influential are those relating to facet analysis. Ranganathan demonstrated that facet analysis (breaking down subjects into their component parts) and synthesis (recombining these parts to fit the documents) provide the most viable approach to representing the contents of documents. Although the idea and use of facets, though not always called by that name, have been present for a long time (for instance, in the Dewey Decimal Classification and Charles A. Cutter's Expansive Classification), Ranganathan was the person who systematized the ideas and established principles for them. For his Colon Classification, Ranganathan identified five fundamental categories: Personality (P), Material (M), Energy (E), Space (S) and Time (T) and the citation order PMEST based an the idea of decreasing concreteness.
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).

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 3487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06082462 = score(doc=3487,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.25904894 = fieldWeight in 3487, 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=3487)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper argues that the semantic axis of bibliographic classification systems can be found in the various warrants that have been used to justify the utility of classification systems. Classificationists, theorists, and critics have emphasized the syntactic aspects of classification theories and systems, but a number of semantic warrants can be identified. The evolution of four semantic warrants is traced through the development of twentieth-century classification theory: literary warrant, scientific/philosophical warrant, educational warrant, and cultural warrant. It is concluded that further examination of semantic warrants might make possible a rationalized approach to the creation of classification systems for particular uses. The attention of scholars on faceted schemes and classificatory structures had heretofore pulled our attention to the syntactic aspects (e.g., concept division and citation order), with semantics being considered more or less a question of the terms and their relationships and somewhat taken for granted, or at least construed as a unitary aspect. Attention is on the choice of the classes and their meaning, as well as their connection to the world, and not so much on their syntactic relationship. This notion is developed by providing an historical and conceptual overview of the various kinds of warrant discernible in working with bibliographic systems. In Beghtol's definition, warrant concerns more than just the selection of terms, but rather the mapping of a classification system to the context and uses.

0.020274874 = product of:
  0.06082462 = sum of:
    0.06082462 = weight(_text_:citation in 323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06082462 = score(doc=323,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.25904894 = fieldWeight in 323, 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=323)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The spread of many new media and formats is changing the scenario faced by knowledge organizers: as printed monographs are not the only standard form of knowledge carrier anymore, the traditional kind of knowledge organization (KO) systems based on academic disciplines is put into question. A sounder foundation can be provided by an analysis of the different dimensions concurring to form the content of any knowledge item-what Brian Vickery described as the steps "from the world to the classifier." The ultimate referents of documents are the phenomena of the real world, that can be ordered by ontology, the study of what exists. Phenomena coexist in subjects with the perspectives by which they are considered, pertaining to epistemology, and with the formal features of knowledge carriers, adding a further, pragmatic layer. All these dimensions can be accounted for in metadata, but are often done so in mixed ways, making indexes less rigorous and interoperable. For example, while facet analysis was originally developed for subject indexing, many "faceted" interfaces today mix subject facets with form facets, and schemes presented as "ontologies" for the "semantic Web" also code for non-semantic information. In bibliographic classifications, phenomena are often confused with the disciplines dealing with them, the latter being assumed to be the most useful starting point, for users will have either one or another perspective. A general citation order of dimensions- phenomena, perspective, carrier-is recommended, helping to concentrate most relevant information at the beginning of headings.

0.0172038 = product of:
  0.0516114 = sum of:
    0.0516114 = weight(_text_:citation in 3651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0516114 = score(doc=3651,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.23479973 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050071523 = queryNorm
        0.2198103 = fieldWeight in 3651, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.6892867 = idf(docFreq=1104, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3651)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper, presented at the Ottawa Conference an the Conceptual Basis of the Classification of Knowledge, in 1971, is one of Fairthorne's more perceptive works and deserves a wide audience, especially as it breaks new ground in classification theory. In discussing the notion of discourse, he makes a "distinction between what discourse mentions and what discourse is about" [emphasis added], considered as a "fundamental factor to the relativistic nature of bibliographic classification" (p. 360). A table of mathematical functions, for example, describes exactly something represented by a collection of digits, but, without a preface, this table does not fit into a broader context. Some indication of the author's intent ls needed to fit the table into a broader context. This intent may appear in a title, chapter heading, class number or some other aid. Discourse an and discourse about something "cannot be determined solely from what it mentions" (p. 361). Some kind of background is needed. Fairthorne further develops the theme that knowledge about a subject comes from previous knowledge, thus adding a temporal factor to classification. "Some extra textual criteria are needed" in order to classify (p. 362). For example, "documents that mention the same things, but are an different topics, will have different ancestors, in the sense of preceding documents to which they are linked by various bibliographic characteristics ... [and] ... they will have different descendants" (p. 363). The classifier has to distinguish between documents that "mention exactly the same thing" but are not about the same thing. The classifier does this by classifying "sets of documents that form their histories, their bibliographic world lines" (p. 363). The practice of citation is one method of performing the linking and presents a "fan" of documents connected by a chain of citations to past work. The fan is seen as the effect of generations of documents - each generation connected to the previous one, and all ancestral to the present document. Thus, there are levels in temporal structure-that is, antecedent and successor documents-and these require that documents be identified in relation to other documents. This gives a set of documents an "irrevocable order," a loose order which Fairthorne calls "bibliographic time," and which is "generated by the fact of continual growth" (p. 364). He does not consider "bibliographic time" to be an equivalent to physical time because bibliographic events, as part of communication, require delay. Sets of documents, as indicated above, rather than single works, are used in classification. While an event, a person, a unique feature of the environment, may create a class of one-such as the French Revolution, Napoleon, Niagara Falls-revolutions, emperors, and waterfalls are sets which, as sets, will subsume individuals and make normal classes.
The fan of past documents may be seen across time as a philosophical "wake," translated documents as a sideways relationship and future documents as another fan spreading forward from a given document (p. 365). The "overlap of reading histories can be used to detect common interests among readers," (p. 365) and readers may be classified accordingly. Finally, Fairthorne rejects the notion of a "general" classification, which he regards as a mirage, to be replaced by a citation-type network to identify classes. An interesting feature of his work lies in his linkage between old and new documents via a bibliographic method-citations, authors' names, imprints, style, and vocabulary - rather than topical (subject) terms. This is an indirect method of creating classes. The subject (aboutness) is conceived as a finite, common sharing of knowledge over time (past, present, and future) as opposed to the more common hierarchy of topics in an infinite schema assumed to be universally useful. Fairthorne, a mathematician by training, is a prolific writer an the foundations of classification and information. His professional career includes work with the Royal Engineers Chemical Warfare Section and the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE). He was the founder of the Computing Unit which became the RAE Mathematics Department.

0.014084793 = product of:
  0.042254377 = sum of:
    0.042254377 = product of:
      0.084508754 = sum of:
        0.084508754 = weight(_text_:index in 641) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.084508754 = score(doc=641,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.3862362 = fieldWeight in 641, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=641)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

Inhalt: Classification: definition and uses - The relationships between classes - Enumerative and faceted schemes - Decisions - The construction of a faceted scheme: I - The construction of a faceted scheme: II - Notation: I - Notation: II - Notation: III - The alphabetical subject index - General classification schemes - Objections to systematic order - Automatic classification

0.013567999 = product of:
  0.040703997 = sum of:
    0.040703997 = product of:
      0.081407994 = sum of:
        0.081407994 = weight(_text_:22 in 6404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081407994 = score(doc=6404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6404, 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=6404)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.013567999 = product of:
  0.040703997 = sum of:
    0.040703997 = product of:
      0.081407994 = sum of:
        0.081407994 = weight(_text_:22 in 3773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081407994 = score(doc=3773,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3773, 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=3773)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.013567999 = product of:
  0.040703997 = sum of:
    0.040703997 = product of:
      0.081407994 = sum of:
        0.081407994 = weight(_text_:22 in 3176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.081407994 = score(doc=3176,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3176, 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=3176)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

6. 5.2017 18:46:22

0.012324194 = product of:
  0.036972582 = sum of:
    0.036972582 = product of:
      0.073945165 = sum of:
        0.073945165 = weight(_text_:index in 931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.073945165 = score(doc=931,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.33795667 = fieldWeight in 931, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=931)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

Contents: Preface. 1. Classification systems. 2. Automatic classification. 3. Knowledge classification. 4. Reflections on library classification. 5. General classification schemes. 6. Hierarchical classification. 7. Faceted classification. B. Present methods and future directions. Index.

0.012324194 = product of:
  0.036972582 = sum of:
    0.036972582 = product of:
      0.073945165 = sum of:
        0.073945165 = weight(_text_:index in 3530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.073945165 = score(doc=3530,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.33795667 = fieldWeight in 3530, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3530)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Classes in the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system function as neighborhoods around focal topics in captions and notes. Topical neighborhoods are generated through specialization and instantiation, complex topic synthesis, index terms and mapped headings, hierarchical force, rules for choosing between numbers, development of the DDC over time, and use of the system in classifying resources. Implications of representation using a formal knowledge representation language are explored.

0.010563595 = product of:
  0.031690784 = sum of:
    0.031690784 = product of:
      0.06338157 = sum of:
        0.06338157 = weight(_text_:index in 1654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06338157 = score(doc=1654,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.28967714 = fieldWeight in 1654, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1654)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A classification is a theory of the structure of knowledge. From a discussion of the nature of truth, it is held that scientific knowledge is the only knowledge which can be regarded as true. The method of induction from empirical data is therefore applied to the construction of a classification. Items of knowledge are divided into uniquely definable terms, called isolates, and the relations between them, called operators. It is shown that only four basic operators exist, expressing appurtenance, equivalence, reaction and causation; using symbols for these operators, all subjects can be analysed in a linear form called an analet. With the addition of the permissible permutations of such analets, formed according to simple rules, alphabetical arrangement of the first terms provide a complete, logical subject index. Examples are given, and possible difficulties are considered. A classification can then be constructed by selection of deductive relations, arranged in hierarchical form. The nature of possible classifications is discussed. It is claimed that such an inductively constructed classification is the only true representation of the structure of knowledge, and that these principles provide a simple technique for accurately and fully indexing and classifying any given set of data, with complete flexibility

0.010563595 = product of:
  0.031690784 = sum of:
    0.031690784 = product of:
      0.06338157 = sum of:
        0.06338157 = weight(_text_:index in 2651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06338157 = score(doc=2651,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.28967714 = fieldWeight in 2651, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2651)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The paper analyses the importance of data presentation and modelling and its role in improving the management, use and exchange of analytico-synthetic classifications in automated systems. Inefficiencies, in this respect, hinder the automation of classification systems that offer the possibility of building compound index/search terms. The lack of machine readable data expressing the semantics and structure of a classification vocabulary has negative effects on information management and retrieval, thus restricting the potential of both automated systems and classifications themselves. The authors analysed the data representation structure of three general analytico-synthetic classification systems (BC2-Bliss Bibliographic Classification; BSO-Broad System of Ordering; UDC-Universal Decimal Classification) and put forward some core requirements for classification data representation

0.009959454 = product of:
  0.02987836 = sum of:
    0.02987836 = product of:
      0.05975672 = sum of:
        0.05975672 = weight(_text_:index in 3636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05975672 = score(doc=3636,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21880072 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.27311024 = fieldWeight in 3636, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3636)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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:

0.009045334 = product of:
  0.027136 = sum of:
    0.027136 = product of:
      0.054272 = sum of:
        0.054272 = weight(_text_:22 in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054272 = score(doc=7242,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7242, 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=7242)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 4.1997 21:10:19

0.009045334 = product of:
  0.027136 = sum of:
    0.027136 = product of:
      0.054272 = sum of:
        0.054272 = weight(_text_:22 in 1171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054272 = score(doc=1171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17534193 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050071523 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1171, 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=1171)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Source

Bulletin d'informations de l'Association des Bibliothecaires Francais. 1997, no.175, S.22-23