Search (96 results, page 1 of 5)

  • × theme_ss:"Geschichte der Klassifikationssysteme"
  1. Rodriguez, R.D.: Kaiser's systematic indexing (1984) 0.10 
    0.1015089 = product of:
  0.1691815 = sum of:
    0.023487754 = weight(_text_:of in 4521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023487754 = score(doc=4521,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 4521, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4521)
    0.09517398 = weight(_text_:subject in 4521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09517398 = score(doc=4521,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.5475522 = fieldWeight in 4521, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4521)
    0.05051976 = product of:
      0.10103952 = sum of:
        0.10103952 = weight(_text_:headings in 4521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10103952 = score(doc=4521,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23569997 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.42867854 = fieldWeight in 4521, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4521)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    J. Kaiser (1868-1927) developed a system of subject indexing based on what he called "concretes" and "processes" to govern the form of subject headings and subdivisions. Although Kaiser applied his systematic indexing to specialized technical and business collections, his ideas are entirely applicable to all book collections and catalogs. Though largely ignored, Kaiser's system is of permanent interest in the study of the development of subject analysis
  2. Olson, H.A.: ¬The ubiquitous hierarchy : an army to overcome the threat of a mob (2004) 0.08 
    0.08110704 = product of:
  0.1351784 = sum of:
    0.02970992 = weight(_text_:of in 833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02970992 = score(doc=833,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.39093933 = fieldWeight in 833, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=833)
    0.05494872 = weight(_text_:subject in 833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05494872 = score(doc=833,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.31612942 = fieldWeight in 833, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=833)
    0.05051976 = product of:
      0.10103952 = sum of:
        0.10103952 = weight(_text_:headings in 833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10103952 = score(doc=833,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23569997 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.42867854 = fieldWeight in 833, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=833)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    This article explores the connections between Melvil Dewey and Hegelianism and Charles Cutter and the Scottish Common Sense philosophers. It traces the practice of hierarchy from these philosophical influences to Dewey and Cutter and their legacy to today's Dewey Decimal Classification and Library of Congress Subject Headings. The ubiquity of hierarchy is linked to Dewey's and Cutter's metaphor of organizing the mob of information into an orderly army using the tool of logic.
    Footnote
    Artikel in einem Themenheft: The philosophy of information
  3. Hulme, E.W.: Principles of book classification (1985) 0.07 
    0.07340713 = product of:
  0.12234521 = sum of:
    0.025187809 = weight(_text_:of in 3626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025187809 = score(doc=3626,freq=46.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.33143494 = fieldWeight in 3626, product of:
          6.78233 = tf(freq=46.0), with freq of:
            46.0 = termFreq=46.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3626)
    0.06143454 = weight(_text_:subject in 3626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06143454 = score(doc=3626,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.35344344 = fieldWeight in 3626, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3626)
    0.035722863 = product of:
      0.071445726 = sum of:
        0.071445726 = weight(_text_:headings in 3626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.071445726 = score(doc=3626,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23569997 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.3031215 = fieldWeight in 3626, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.849944 = idf(docFreq=940, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3626)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)
    Abstract
    One of the earliest works on the theory of classification appeared in a series of six chapters an the "Principles of Book Classification" published between October 1911 and May 1912 in the Library Association Record. In this publication, the author, E. Wyndham Hulme (1859-1954) whose career included twenty-five years as Librarian of the British Patent Office, set forth the fundamentals of classification as manifested in both the classed and the alphabetical catalogs. The work and the ideas contained therein have largely been forgotten. However, one phrase stands out and has been used frequently in the discussions of classification and indexing, particularly in reference to systems such as Library of Congress Classification, Dewey Decimal Classification, and Library of Congress Subject Headings. That phrase is "literary warrant"-meaning that the basis for classification is to be found in the actual published literature rather than abstract philosophical ideas or concepts in the universe of knowledge or the "order of nature and system of the sciences." To the extent that classification and indexing systems should be based upon existing literature rather than the universe of human knowledge, the concept of "literary warrant" defines systems used in library and information services, as distinguished from a purely philosophical classification. Library classification attempts to classify library materials-the records of knowledge-rather than knowledge itself; the establishment of a class or a heading for a subject is based an existing literature treating that subject. The following excerpt contains Hulme's definition of "literary warrant." Hulme first rejects the notion of using "the nature of the subject matter to be divided" as the basis for establishing headings, then he proceeds to propose the use of "literary warrant," that is, "an accurate survey and measurement of classes in literature," as the determinant.
    Source
    Theory of subject analysis: a sourcebook. Ed.: L.M. Chan, et al
  4. LaBarre, K.: ¬The heritage of early FC in document reference retrieval systems : 1920-1969 (2007) 0.06 
    0.057285424 = product of:
  0.14321356 = sum of:
    0.115422465 = weight(_text_:list in 689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.115422465 = score(doc=689,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25191793 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.45817488 = fieldWeight in 689, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=689)
    0.027791087 = weight(_text_:of in 689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027791087 = score(doc=689,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.36569026 = fieldWeight in 689, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=689)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Revisits the heritage of faceted classification (FC) beginning with an examination of the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) in its early manifestations and the groundwork established by international documentalist groups. Early document retrieval experimentation with FC during the intensive period of system design, testing and evaluation in the 1950s and 1960s is discussed, as well as the rise of an international discourse community that sought to augment and extend the reach of FC through system implementations. A list of acronyms employed in the article is given in an appendix.
  5. Brown, J.D.; Stewart, J.D.: Subject classification (1939) 0.05 
    0.05236221 = product of:
  0.13090552 = sum of:
    0.021008085 = weight(_text_:of in 1390) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021008085 = score(doc=1390,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 1390, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1390)
    0.10989744 = weight(_text_:subject in 1390) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10989744 = score(doc=1390,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.63225883 = fieldWeight in 1390, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1390)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Footnote
    2nd ed.: ... with tables, indexes etc. for the subdivision of subjects. London 1914
  6. Arntz, H.: Universality of classification? : Keynote address (1982) 0.04 
    0.041882206 = product of:
  0.10470551 = sum of:
    0.022282438 = weight(_text_:of in 49) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022282438 = score(doc=49,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 49, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=49)
    0.082423076 = weight(_text_:subject in 49) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.082423076 = score(doc=49,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.4741941 = fieldWeight in 49, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=49)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Source
    Universal classification II: subject analysis and ordering systems. Proc. of the 4th Int. Study Conf. on Classification research, Augsburg, 28.6.-2.7.1982. Ed.: I. Dahlberg
  7. Sukiasyan, E.: ¬The ideas of S.R. Ranganathan in Russia : Results and tendencies (1992) 0.04 
    0.03657113 = product of:
  0.091427825 = sum of:
    0.022741921 = weight(_text_:of in 2359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022741921 = score(doc=2359,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 2359, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2359)
    0.068685904 = weight(_text_:subject in 2359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068685904 = score(doc=2359,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.39516178 = fieldWeight in 2359, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2359)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Survey of studies in Russia during the past 45 years concerning the work of S.R. Ranganathan, especially with regard to his classification terminology, the chain procedure and the categorial analysis for the application in the alphabetic subject index and the classified catalogue
  8. Holiday, J.: Subject access: new technology and philosophical perspectives (1989) 0.04 
    0.035598524 = product of:
  0.088996306 = sum of:
    0.017615816 = weight(_text_:of in 971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017615816 = score(doc=971,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.23179851 = fieldWeight in 971, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=971)
    0.07138049 = weight(_text_:subject in 971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07138049 = score(doc=971,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.41066417 = fieldWeight in 971, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=971)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This paper examines how classification schemes provide subject access. Concept arrangement before computers is compared to its role after machine-based exact match techniques have evolved. The change in retrieval techniques corresponds to a change in philosophy of knowledge. Classification schemes, emerging from Aristotelian philosophy, provide conceptual frameworks for direct human interaction to foster reference and communication. Computer-based systems provide access with a different emphasis on conceptual arrangement. Employing a philosophy of knowledge as facets, computer programs use word-frequency analyses, uncontrolled vocabulary, and feedback procedures to define subject access. Classification for machine processing optimizes the power of these systems. Though the influence of Aristotelian philosophy declines, structures for concept communication continue to be instrumental in the efficient operation of computer-based systems. Ongoing classification work can help direct vague inquiries and reflect human and social relationships to knowledge
  9. Kaiser, J.O.: Systematic indexing (1985) 0.03 
    0.03464894 = product of:
  0.08662235 = sum of:
    0.025187809 = weight(_text_:of in 571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025187809 = score(doc=571,freq=46.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.33143494 = fieldWeight in 571, product of:
          6.78233 = tf(freq=46.0), with freq of:
            46.0 = termFreq=46.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=571)
    0.06143454 = weight(_text_:subject in 571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06143454 = score(doc=571,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.35344344 = fieldWeight in 571, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=571)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    A native of Germany and a former teacher of languages and music, Julius Otto Kaiser (1868-1927) came to the Philadelphia Commercial Museum to be its librarian in 1896. Faced with the problem of making "information" accessible, he developed a method of indexing he called systematic indexing. The first draft of his scheme, published in 1896-97, was an important landmark in the history of subject analysis. R. K. Olding credits Kaiser with making the greatest single advance in indexing theory since Charles A. Cutter and John Metcalfe eulogizes him by observing that "in sheer capacity for really scientific and logical thinking, Kaiser's was probably the best mind that has ever applied itself to subject indexing." Kaiser was an admirer of "system." By systematic indexing he meant indicating information not with natural language expressions as, for instance, Cutter had advocated, but with artificial expressions constructed according to formulas. Kaiser grudged natural language its approximateness, its vagaries, and its ambiguities. The formulas he introduced were to provide a "machinery for regularising or standardising language" (paragraph 67). Kaiser recognized three categories or "facets" of index terms: (1) terms of concretes, representing things, real or imaginary (e.g., money, machines); (2) terms of processes, representing either conditions attaching to things or their actions (e.g., trade, manufacture); and (3) terms of localities, representing, for the most part, countries (e.g., France, South Africa). Expressions in Kaiser's index language were called statements. Statements consisted of sequences of terms, the syntax of which was prescribed by formula. These formulas specified sequences of terms by reference to category types. Only three citation orders were permitted: a term in the concrete category followed by one in the process category (e.g., Wool-Scouring); (2) a country term followed by a process term (e.g., Brazil - Education); and (3) a concrete term followed by a country term, followed by a process term (e.g., Nitrate-Chile-Trade). Kaiser's system was a precursor of two of the most significant developments in twentieth-century approaches to subject access-the special purpose use of language for indexing, thus the concept of index language, which was to emerge as a generative idea at the time of the second Cranfield experiment (1966) and the use of facets to categorize subject indicators, which was to become the characterizing feature of analytico-synthetic indexing methods such as the Colon classification. In addition to its visionary quality, Kaiser's work is notable for its meticulousness and honesty, as can be seen, for instance, in his observations about the difficulties in facet definition.
    Source
    Theory of subject analysis: a sourcebook. Ed.: L.M. Chan, et al
  10. Ranganathan, S.R.: Facet analysis: fundamental categories (1985) 0.03 
    0.034446955 = product of:
  0.08611739 = sum of:
    0.02251335 = weight(_text_:of in 3631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02251335 = score(doc=3631,freq=48.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 3631, product of:
          6.928203 = tf(freq=48.0), with freq of:
            48.0 = termFreq=48.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3631)
    0.063604034 = weight(_text_:subject in 3631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.063604034 = score(doc=3631,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.36592492 = fieldWeight in 3631, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3631)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    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).
    Footnote
    Original in: Ranganathan, S.R.: Elements of library classification. 3rd ed. Bombay: Asia Publishing House 1962. S.82-89
    Source
    Theory of subject analysis: a sourcebook. Ed.: L.M. Chan, et al
  11. Beghtol, C.: Exploring new approaches to the organization of knowledge : the subject classification of James Duff Brown (2004) 0.03 
    0.032766405 = product of:
  0.08191601 = sum of:
    0.023634095 = weight(_text_:of in 869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023634095 = score(doc=869,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 869, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=869)
    0.058281917 = weight(_text_:subject in 869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058281917 = score(doc=869,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.33530587 = fieldWeight in 869, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=869)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    James Duff Brown was an influential and energetic librarian in Great Britain in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. His Subject Classification has characteristics that were unusual and idiosyncratic during his own time, but his work deserves recognition as one of the precursors of modern bibliographic classification systems. This article discusses a number of theories and classification practices that Brown developed. In particular, it investigates his views on the order of main classes, on the phenomenon of "concrete" subjects, and on the need for synthesized notations. It traces these ideas briefly into the future through the work of S. R. Ranganathan, the Classification Research Group, and the second edition of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification system. It concludes that Brown's work warrants further study for the light it may shed on current classification theory and practice.
  12. Rückert, I.: Klassifikatorische Erschließung in der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek (2008) 0.03 
    0.031650092 = product of:
  0.07912523 = sum of:
    0.020843314 = weight(_text_:of in 2153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020843314 = score(doc=2153,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 2153, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2153)
    0.058281917 = weight(_text_:subject in 2153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058281917 = score(doc=2153,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.33530587 = fieldWeight in 2153, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2153)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The history of classified order relating to the Bavarian State Library dates back to the library's origins and the theoretical treatise its collections inspired. Many more classifications followed to facilitate practical access to the ever expanding collections, both in the open-access areas and in the closed stacks. The most comprehensive classifications used in the library are introduced in chronological order and as instruments to ensure the continuity of subject access in a kind of logical sequence: the Classified Shelf-Register of 1814, the Old Classified Catalogue 1501 - 1952 dating from the 1870s, the Hirschberger Catalogue 1953 - 1981, the Munich Classification of 1983 and the development of an Online Classification (DDC) based on the Dewey Decimal Classification from a predecessor in 1999 to announce the latest acquisitions in the special collection fields.
    Source
    New pespectives on subject indexing and classification: essays in honour of Magda Heiner-Freiling. Red.: K. Knull-Schlomann, u.a
  13. Martel, C.: Classification: a brief conspectus of present day library practice (1985) 0.03 
    0.029326612 = product of:
  0.07331653 = sum of:
    0.025729544 = weight(_text_:of in 3623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025729544 = score(doc=3623,freq=48.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 3623, product of:
          6.928203 = tf(freq=48.0), with freq of:
            48.0 = termFreq=48.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3623)
    0.04758699 = weight(_text_:subject in 3623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04758699 = score(doc=3623,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.2737761 = fieldWeight in 3623, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3623)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    It has been generally recognized that the Library of Congress Classification, developed at the turn of the century, has been based an practical rather than theoreti cal or philosophical considerations. Unlike most of the other library classification systems, which originated from individual minds, the Library of Congress Classification system was the result of corporate efforts. Nonetheless, there were a number of individuals who, in the early stages of its development, provided guidance regarding the general framework and direction of the scheme. The most important among these was Charles Martel (1860-1945) who was Chief Classifier at the Library of Congress when the system was first developed. In a paper read before the New Zealand Library Association in April 1911, from which the following excerpt has been taken, Martel gave his views concerning library classification in general and provided a glimpse of the rationale behind the Library of Congress Classification system in particular. In the following excerpt, Martel discusses the basis of the Library of Congress Classification system to be not "the scientific order of subjects ... [but] rather [a] convenient sequence of the various groups ... of books." This is the "literary warrant" an which the Library of Congress system has been based. With regard to the notation, Martel argues for brevity in preference to symmetry or mnemonics. Brevity of notation has since been recognized as one of the greatest advantages of the Library of Congress system as a device for shelf arrangement of books. Martel outlines seven groupings used in the system for subarranging books an the subject, first by form and then by subject subdivisions. This pattern, known as Martel's "seven points," has served as the general framework in individual classes and provided the most significant unifying factor for individual classes in the system, which contain many unique or disparate characteristics.
    Source
    Theory of subject analysis: a sourcebook. Ed.: L.M. Chan, et al
  14. Hopwood, H.V.: Dewey expanded (1985) 0.03 
    0.028429896 = product of:
  0.07107474 = sum of:
    0.023487754 = weight(_text_:of in 3629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023487754 = score(doc=3629,freq=40.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 3629, product of:
          6.3245554 = tf(freq=40.0), with freq of:
            40.0 = termFreq=40.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3629)
    0.04758699 = weight(_text_:subject in 3629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04758699 = score(doc=3629,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.2737761 = fieldWeight in 3629, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3629)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Toward the end of the nineteenth century, Paul Otlet and Henri LaFontaine of Belgium initiated the compilation of an index to all recorded knowledge. Instead of an alphabetical file, they decided to adopt a classified arrangement. For the basis of such an arrangement, they turned to the Dewey Decimal Classification, a system which was gaining wide acceptance in American libraries. With permission secured from Melvil Dewey to expand the system to include details required for an indexing tool, Otlet and LaFontaine began developing what was to become the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC). Following the establishment of the Institut International de Bibliographie (IIB), later the Fédération Internationale de Documentation (FID), in 1895, work an the universal index and the classification scheme proceeded under its aegis. In 1905, the classification scheme was published as the Manuel du Répertoire bibliographique universel. While the initial, ambitious project of the universal index was abandoned, the classification scheme itself was widely adopted, particularly in special libraries in Europe. A second edition was published in 1927-1933 under the title Classification décimale universelle. The development and maintanance of the scheme continued with the support of the FID. In the course of its development, the UDC moved further and further away from its prototype, the Dewey Decimal Classification. One of the major differences between the two systems is the use of relators in UDC. The notation adopted by Melvil Dewey for his scheme is a hierarchical one; in other words, the notation reflects the hierarchical relationships among subjects. However, it does not display the relationships among the facets, or aspects, of a particular subject. Furthermore, the use of auxiliaries in the Dewey Decimal Classification, beginning with the form subdivisions and gradually expanding to include geographic subdivisions and finally other auxiliaries in the most recent editions, has been relatively restricted. As an indexing tool, Otlet and LaFontaine felt that their system needed commonly applicable auxiliaries which they called "determinatives."` To this end, a series of special symbols were introduced into the system for the purpose of combining related subjects and indicating different facets or aspects of the main subject. The use of these symbols, called relators, with the auxiliaries has rendered the Universal Decimal Classification a synthetic scheme. In this respect, the UDC has moved much more rapidly than the Dewey Decimal Classification toward becoming a faceted classification. In the following paper, Henry V. Hopwood, a Senior Assistant at the British Patent Office Library during the 1900s, explains the use and rationale of relators, or "marks," as he calls them, in the Universal Decimal Classification.
    Source
    Theory of subject analysis: a sourcebook. Ed.: L.M. Chan, et al
  15. Bliss, H.E.: ¬A bibliographic classification : principles and definitions (1985) 0.03 
    0.02779156 = product of:
  0.0694789 = sum of:
    0.030624283 = weight(_text_:of in 3621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030624283 = score(doc=3621,freq=68.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.40297103 = fieldWeight in 3621, product of:
          8.246211 = tf(freq=68.0), with freq of:
            68.0 = termFreq=68.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3621)
    0.038854614 = weight(_text_:subject in 3621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038854614 = score(doc=3621,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.22353725 = fieldWeight in 3621, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3621)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Henry Evelyn Bliss (1870-1955) devoted several decades of his life to the study of classification and the development of the Bibliographic Classification scheme while serving as a librarian in the College of the City of New York. In the course of the development of the Bibliographic Classification, Bliss developed a body of classification theory published in a number of articles and books, among which the best known are The Organization of Knowledge and the System of the Sciences (1929), Organization of Knowledge in Libraries and the Subject Approach to Books (1933; 2nd ed., 1939), and the lengthy preface to A Bibliographic Classification (Volumes 1-2, 1940; 2nd ed., 1952). In developing the Bibliographic Classification, Bliss carefully established its philosophical and theoretical basis, more so than was attempted by the makers of other classification schemes, with the possible exception of S. R. Ranganathan (q.v.) and his Colon Classification. The basic principles established by Bliss for the Bibliographic Classification are: consensus, collocation of related subjects, subordination of special to general and gradation in specialty, and the relativity of classes and of classification (hence alternative location and alternative treatment). In the preface to the schedules of A Bibliographic Classification, Bliss spells out the general principles of classification as weIl as principles specifically related to his scheme. The first volume of the schedules appeared in 1940. In 1952, he issued a second edition of the volume with a rewritten preface, from which the following excerpt is taken, and with the addition of a "Concise Synopsis," which is also included here to illustrate the principles of classificatory structure. In the excerpt reprinted below, Bliss discusses the correlation between classes, concepts, and terms, as weIl as the hierarchical structure basic to his classification scheme. In his discussion of cross-classification, Bliss recognizes the "polydimensional" nature of classification and the difficulties inherent in the two-dimensional approach which is characteristic of linear classification. This is one of the earliest works in which the multidimensional nature of classification is recognized. The Bibliographic Classification did not meet with great success in the United States because the Dewey Decimal Classification and the Library of Congress Classification were already weIl ensconced in American libraries by then. Nonetheless, it attracted considerable attention in the British Commonwealth and elsewhere in the world. A committee was formed in Britain which later became the Bliss Classification Association. A faceted edition of the scheme has been in preparation under the direction of J. Mills and V. Broughton. Several parts of this new edition, entitled Bliss Bibliographic Classification, have been published.
    Source
    Theory of subject analysis: a sourcebook. Ed.: L.M. Chan, et al
  16. Svenonius, E.: Facet definition: a case study (1978) 0.03 
    0.027452767 = product of:
  0.06863192 = sum of:
    0.020551786 = weight(_text_:of in 2623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020551786 = score(doc=2623,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 2623, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2623)
    0.04808013 = weight(_text_:subject in 2623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04808013 = score(doc=2623,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 2623, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2623)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Historical account of the sophisticated method of indexing developed by J.O. Kaiser (1896/97), a librarian at the Philadelphia Commercial Museum who established his index on cards (a novelty then) and distinguished his items according to the categories 'concrete', 'process', and 'country'. He also introduced "statement indexing" and rules to this end in order to permit the supply of "complete information" on a subject in a document. In summarizing these findings, the author stresses the necessitiy of establishing well-defined categories if an organization of terms is to serve e.g. information retrieval.
  17. Béthery, A.: Liberté bien ordonnée : les classifications encyclopédiques revues et corrigées (1988) 0.03 
    0.026936008 = product of:
  0.06734002 = sum of:
    0.026128478 = weight(_text_:of in 2532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026128478 = score(doc=2532,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 2532, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2532)
    0.041211538 = weight(_text_:subject in 2532) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041211538 = score(doc=2532,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 2532, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2532)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The current trend of simplifying user access to documents in public libraries in France has led to strong criticism of the traditional use of decimal classification, and growing popularity for classifying by centres of interest. The notion of locating documents 'where the reader expects to find them' does not bear reasoned analysis: this approach depends on the subjective attitudes of the reader, whose preconceptions are unknown. Public libraries serve readers of all types, and therefore the classification used must be based on general objective criteria. Argues for the retension of traditional encyclopedic classifications (UDC or Dewey), which despite their drawbacks, are based on subject structures known to everyone, and allow for updating to accommodate new concepts. Classification can operate with visual labelling systems, to simplify access: this approach provides ready identification of centres of interest without discarding the real advantages of universality.
  18. Lorenz, B.: ¬Die DDC im Umfeld der Entwicklung dezimaler Klassifikationen (2008) 0.03 
    0.025183696 = product of:
  0.06295924 = sum of:
    0.028616289 = weight(_text_:of in 2152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028616289 = score(doc=2152,freq=38.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.37654874 = fieldWeight in 2152, product of:
          6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
            38.0 = termFreq=38.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2152)
    0.034342952 = weight(_text_:subject in 2152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034342952 = score(doc=2152,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 2152, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2152)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The decimal system is one system of a number of possible systems of ordering - and a very symbolic also. The ordering in ten chapters, themes, numbers, etc. you can find often in history. Indeed Dewey is not the genius-founder of decimal classification (against a number of authors)! For ordering and structuring separate schemes within a classification DDC creates a number of important negative solutions, e.g. in the main classes the 'lost' of physics and of medicine as special schemes: Nearly a catastrophe in the times of STM! And against an enormous tradition like Leibniz 1646 - 1716) et alii! Compare Bliss: The Bliss-Classification gives space for 6 numbers »sciences« in a context of 26 classes. Therefore the result in short: DDC (and UDC of course!) are »flowers« of the past, of the first decades of century 20! As a fact the Decimal Classification within the tradition of Melvil Dewey is not a final work: See the increasing number of newly constructed decimal classifications during the years 80 and 90 of the 20th century! Nevertheless DDC is a very great (problem and) solution in its development, internationality, reception - and edge-stone for many thinkers and librarians throughout the world - and an important example for modern translational work! Magda Heiner-Freiling has given to us a great stone for the edifice of Modern DDC: Requiescat in pace!
    Source
    New pespectives on subject indexing and classification: essays in honour of Magda Heiner-Freiling. Red.: K. Knull-Schlomann, u.a
  19. Dewey, M.: Decimal classification beginnings (1990) 0.02 
    0.024715593 = product of:
  0.061788984 = sum of:
    0.022282438 = weight(_text_:of in 3554) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022282438 = score(doc=3554,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 3554, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3554)
    0.039506543 = product of:
      0.07901309 = sum of:
        0.07901309 = weight(_text_:22 in 3554) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07901309 = score(doc=3554,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17018363 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3554, 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=3554)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Describes the author's development of the Dewey Decimal Classification
    Date
    25.12.1995 22:28:43
    Footnote
    Reprint of article originally published in Library journal 15 Feb 20.
  20. Craig, B.L.: Twilight of a Victorian registry : the treasury's paper room before 1920 (2010) 0.02 
    0.024564503 = product of:
  0.061411254 = sum of:
    0.0270683 = weight(_text_:of in 3484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0270683 = score(doc=3484,freq=34.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.35617945 = fieldWeight in 3484, product of:
          5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
            34.0 = termFreq=34.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3484)
    0.034342952 = weight(_text_:subject in 3484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034342952 = score(doc=3484,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 3484, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3484)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Experiential knowledge of government business among clerks in the Treasury's paper room stimulated new logs to control transit of records and classified indexes to expand recall of business beyond personal memory. Despite a flowering of expertise in records matters before the First World War, effective changes were compromised by the volume of paper work, inherent limitations of format, and the increased speed of business. Additional staff was the favoured option for keeping up because it did not imply re-thinking the format of records, optimum linking of their physical and intellectual control, or changed operations of the paper room and re-assignment of staff. Classified indexes, a Victorian achievement in the Treasury, held the central service together until the restrictions of format and space for files and for registration notes and for paper room operations led to a new system of registration and classification in 1920. The Victorian separation of initial registration from ultimate classification was replaced by the union of the two processes at the beginning; the principle of file formation changed from one letter, one file, to one subject, one file.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 87
  • d 5
  • f 3
  • i 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 85
  • m 10
  • s 2
  • el 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications