-
Hjoerland, B.: Theories of knowledge organization - theories of knowledge (2017)
0.06
0.06482754 = product of:
0.097241305 = sum of:
0.01973992 = weight(_text_:of in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01973992 = score(doc=3494,freq=8.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
0.07750139 = sum of:
0.028005775 = weight(_text_:science in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028005775 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.20372227 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
0.049495615 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049495615 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3494, 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=3494)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Pages
- S.22-36
- Source
- Theorie, Semantik und Organisation von Wissen: Proceedings der 13. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und dem 13. Internationalen Symposium der Informationswissenschaft der Higher Education Association for Information Science (HI) Potsdam (19.-20.03.2013): 'Theory, Information and Organization of Knowledge' / Proceedings der 14. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und Natural Language & Information Systems (NLDB) Passau (16.06.2015): 'Lexical Resources for Knowledge Organization' / Proceedings des Workshops der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) auf der SEMANTICS Leipzig (1.09.2014): 'Knowledge Organization and Semantic Web' / Proceedings des Workshops der Polnischen und Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) Cottbus (29.-30.09.2011): 'Economics of Knowledge Production and Organization'. Hrsg. von W. Babik, H.P. Ohly u. K. Weber
-
Curras, E.: Ranganathan's classification theories under the systems science postulates (1992)
0.05
0.0510742 = product of:
0.076611295 = sum of:
0.037411377 = weight(_text_:of in 6993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.037411377 = score(doc=6993,freq=22.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.458417 = fieldWeight in 6993, product of:
4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
22.0 = termFreq=22.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6993)
0.03919992 = product of:
0.07839984 = sum of:
0.07839984 = weight(_text_:science in 6993) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07839984 = score(doc=6993,freq=12.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.57030356 = fieldWeight in 6993, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6993)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Describes the basic ideas concerning system science and discusses S.R. Ranganathan's ideas about concepts of 'universe of ideas', 'universe of science', 'universe of knowledge' and 'universe of classification'. Examines the principles, canons and postulates underlying Colon Classification. Discusses the structure of Colon Classification. Points out that the ideas of Ranganathan conform to the concept 'unity of science' and concludes that the principles of systems science or systems thinking are helpful in understanding the theory of classification formulated by Ranganathan
- Source
- Journal of library and information science. 17(1992) no.1, S.45-65
-
Qin, J.: Evolving paradigms of knowledge representation and organization : a comparative study of classification, XML/DTD and ontology (2003)
0.05
0.045913737 = product of:
0.068870604 = sum of:
0.024584092 = weight(_text_:of in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024584092 = score(doc=2763,freq=38.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.30123898 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
38.0 = termFreq=38.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
0.044286508 = sum of:
0.0160033 = weight(_text_:science in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0160033 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.11641272 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
0.028283209 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028283209 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- The different points of views an knowledge representation and organization from various research communities reflect underlying philosophies and paradigms in these communities. This paper reviews differences and relations in knowledge representation and organization and generalizes four paradigms-integrative and disintegrative pragmatism and integrative and disintegrative epistemologism. Examples such as classification, XML schemas, and ontologies are compared based an how they specify concepts, build data models, and encode knowledge organization structures. 1. Introduction Knowledge representation (KR) is a term that several research communities use to refer to somewhat different aspects of the same research area. The artificial intelligence (AI) community considers KR as simply "something to do with writing down, in some language or communications medium, descriptions or pictures that correspond in some salient way to the world or a state of the world" (Duce & Ringland, 1988, p. 3). It emphasizes the ways in which knowledge can be encoded in a computer program (Bench-Capon, 1990). For the library and information science (LIS) community, KR is literally the synonym of knowledge organization, i.e., KR is referred to as the process of organizing knowledge into classifications, thesauri, or subject heading lists. KR has another meaning in LIS: it "encompasses every type and method of indexing, abstracting, cataloguing, classification, records management, bibliography and the creation of textual or bibliographic databases for information retrieval" (Anderson, 1996, p. 336). Adding the social dimension to knowledge organization, Hjoerland (1997) states that knowledge is a part of human activities and tied to the division of labor in society, which should be the primary organization of knowledge. Knowledge organization in LIS is secondary or derived, because knowledge is organized in learned institutions and publications. These different points of views an KR suggest that an essential difference in the understanding of KR between both AI and LIS lies in the source of representationwhether KR targets human activities or derivatives (knowledge produced) from human activities. This difference also decides their difference in purpose-in AI KR is mainly computer-application oriented or pragmatic and the result of representation is used to support decisions an human activities, while in LIS KR is conceptually oriented or abstract and the result of representation is used for access to derivatives from human activities.
- Date
- 12. 9.2004 17:22:35
- Source
- Challenges in knowledge representation and organization for the 21st century: Integration of knowledge across boundaries. Proceedings of the 7th ISKO International Conference Granada, Spain, July 10-13, 2002. Ed.: M. López-Huertas
-
Wang, Z.; Chaudhry, A.S.; Khoo, C.S.G.: Using classification schemes and thesauri to build an organizational taxonomy for organizing content and aiding navigation (2008)
0.04
0.043081157 = product of:
0.06462173 = sum of:
0.020335227 = weight(_text_:of in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020335227 = score(doc=2346,freq=26.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.2491759 = fieldWeight in 2346, product of:
5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
26.0 = termFreq=26.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2346)
0.044286508 = sum of:
0.0160033 = weight(_text_:science in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0160033 = score(doc=2346,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.11641272 = fieldWeight in 2346, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2346)
0.028283209 = weight(_text_:22 in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028283209 = score(doc=2346,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2346, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2346)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Purpose - Potential and benefits of classification schemes and thesauri in building organizational taxonomies cannot be fully utilized by organizations. Empirical data of building an organizational taxonomy by the top-down approach of using classification schemes and thesauri appear to be lacking. The paper seeks to make a contribution in this regard. Design/methodology/approach - A case study of building an organizational taxonomy was conducted in the information studies domain for the Division of Information Studies at Nanyang Technology University, Singapore. The taxonomy was built by using the Dewey Decimal Classification, the Information Science Taxonomy, two information systems taxonomies, and three thesauri (ASIS&T, LISA, and ERIC). Findings - Classification schemes and thesauri were found to be helpful in creating the structure and categories related to the subject facet of the taxonomy, but organizational community sources had to be consulted and several methods had to be employed. The organizational activities and stakeholders' needs had to be identified to determine the objectives, facets, and the subject coverage of the taxonomy. Main categories were determined by identifying the stakeholders' interests and consulting organizational community sources and domain taxonomies. Category terms were selected from terminologies of classification schemes, domain taxonomies, and thesauri against the stakeholders' interests. Hierarchical structures of the main categories were constructed in line with the stakeholders' perspectives and the navigational role taking advantage of structures/term relationships from classification schemes and thesauri. Categories were determined in line with the concepts and the hierarchical levels. Format of categories were uniformed according to a commonly used standard. The consistency principle was employed to make the taxonomy structure and categories neater. Validation of the draft taxonomy through consultations with the stakeholders further refined the taxonomy. Originality/value - No similar study could be traced in the literature. The steps and methods used in the taxonomy development, and the information studies taxonomy itself, will be helpful for library and information schools and other similar organizations in their effort to develop taxonomies for organizing content and aiding navigation on organizational sites.
- Date
- 7.11.2008 15:22:04
- Source
- Journal of documentation. 64(2008) no.6, S.842-876
-
Neelameghan, A.: Classification, theory of (1971)
0.04
0.04260742 = product of:
0.063911125 = sum of:
0.03190453 = weight(_text_:of in 1988) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03190453 = score(doc=1988,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.39093933 = fieldWeight in 1988, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1988)
0.0320066 = product of:
0.0640132 = sum of:
0.0640132 = weight(_text_:science in 1988) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0640132 = score(doc=1988,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.4656509 = fieldWeight in 1988, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1988)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Source
- Encyclopedia of library and information science. Vol.5
-
Malla, N.: Classification of knowledge : a study in the foundations of library science (1991)
0.04
0.041464217 = product of:
0.06219632 = sum of:
0.034190547 = weight(_text_:of in 3004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034190547 = score(doc=3004,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.41895083 = fieldWeight in 3004, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3004)
0.028005775 = product of:
0.05601155 = sum of:
0.05601155 = weight(_text_:science in 3004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05601155 = score(doc=3004,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.40744454 = fieldWeight in 3004, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3004)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Source
- Indian journal of library studies. 2(1991) no.2, S.163-168
-
Maniez, J.: ¬Des classifications aux thesaurus : du bon usage des facettes (1999)
0.04
0.039563164 = product of:
0.059344746 = sum of:
0.016919931 = weight(_text_:of in 6404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016919931 = score(doc=6404,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 6404, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6404)
0.042424813 = product of:
0.084849626 = sum of:
0.084849626 = weight(_text_:22 in 6404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.084849626 = score(doc=6404,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Date
- 1. 8.1996 22:01:00
- Footnote
- Übers. d. Titels: From classification to thesauri: making good use of facets
-
Maniez, J.: ¬Du bon usage des facettes : des classifications aux thésaurus (1999)
0.04
0.039563164 = product of:
0.059344746 = sum of:
0.016919931 = weight(_text_:of in 3773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016919931 = score(doc=3773,freq=2.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 3773, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3773)
0.042424813 = product of:
0.084849626 = sum of:
0.084849626 = weight(_text_:22 in 3773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.084849626 = score(doc=3773,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Date
- 1. 8.1996 22:01:00
- Footnote
- Übers. d. Titels: The good use of facets: from classifications to thesauri
-
Koshman, S.: Categorization and classification revisited : a review of concept in library science and cognitive psychology (1993)
0.04
0.03937999 = product of:
0.059069984 = sum of:
0.02442182 = weight(_text_:of in 8349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02442182 = score(doc=8349,freq=6.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 8349, 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=8349)
0.03464816 = product of:
0.06929632 = sum of:
0.06929632 = weight(_text_:science in 8349) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06929632 = score(doc=8349,freq=6.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.5040819 = fieldWeight in 8349, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=8349)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Reviews the basic concepts associated with categorization and classification in order to examine the cognitive psychology and library science perspectives toward these processes, to discover if a theoretical affinity exists and to discuss potential applications of cognitive categorization theory to the field of library science
-
Garcia Marco, F.J.; Esteban Navarro, M.A.: On some contributions of the cognitive sciences and epistemology to a theory of classification (1995)
0.04
0.03886829 = product of:
0.058302432 = sum of:
0.035670348 = weight(_text_:of in 5559) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035670348 = score(doc=5559,freq=20.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.43708345 = fieldWeight in 5559, product of:
4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
20.0 = termFreq=20.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5559)
0.022632083 = product of:
0.045264166 = sum of:
0.045264166 = weight(_text_:science in 5559) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.045264166 = score(doc=5559,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.3292649 = fieldWeight in 5559, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5559)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Discusses classification as a central resource of human informational activity and as a central aspect of research for many sciences. Argues that thinking about the background of classification can help improve, or at least clarify, the practical tasks of documentary workers and librarians. Discusses the relationship and gaps between cognitive science and information science, and considers the contributions of epistemology and cognitive psychology; in particular, focuses on the role of the latter in the development of an integrative theory of classification
-
Lin, W.-Y.C.: ¬The concept and applications of faceted classifications (2006)
0.04
0.038751446 = product of:
0.058127165 = sum of:
0.029843956 = weight(_text_:of in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029843956 = score(doc=5083,freq=14.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.36569026 = fieldWeight in 5083, 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=5083)
0.028283209 = product of:
0.056566417 = sum of:
0.056566417 = weight(_text_:22 in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056566417 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5083, 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=5083)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- The concept of faceted classification has its long history and importance in the human civilization. Recently, more and more consumer Web sites adopt the idea of facet analysis to organize and display their products or services. The aim of this article is to review the origin and develpment of faceted classification, as well as its concepts, essence, advantage and limitation. Further, the applications of faceted classification in various domians have been explored.
- Date
- 27. 5.2007 22:19:35
- Source
- Journal of educational media and library sciences. 47(2006) no.2, S.153-171
-
Svenonius, E.: Ranganathan and classification science (1992)
0.04
0.03837499 = product of:
0.057562485 = sum of:
0.029843956 = weight(_text_:of in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029843956 = score(doc=2654,freq=14.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.36569026 = fieldWeight in 2654, 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=2654)
0.027718531 = product of:
0.055437062 = sum of:
0.055437062 = weight(_text_:science in 2654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.055437062 = score(doc=2654,freq=6.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.40326554 = fieldWeight in 2654, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2654)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- This article discusses some of Ranganathan's contributions to the productive, practical and theoretical aspects of classification science. These include: (1) a set of design criteria to guide the designing of schemes for knowledge / subject classification; (2) a conceptual framework for organizing the universe of subjects; and (3) an understanding of the general principles underlying subject disciplines and classificatory languages. It concludes that Ranganathan has contributed significantly to laying the foundations for a science of subject classification.
-
McLachlan, H.V.: Buchanan, Locke and Wittgenstein on classification (1981)
0.04
0.037281495 = product of:
0.05592224 = sum of:
0.027916465 = weight(_text_:of in 1781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027916465 = score(doc=1781,freq=4.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 1781, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1781)
0.028005775 = product of:
0.05601155 = sum of:
0.05601155 = weight(_text_:science in 1781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05601155 = score(doc=1781,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.40744454 = fieldWeight in 1781, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1781)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Footnote
- Rezensionsbeitrag zu Buchanan, B.: Theory of library classification
- Source
- Journal of information science. 3(1981), S.191-195
-
Szostak, R.: Classifying science : phenomena, data, theory, method, practice (2004)
0.04
0.035499543 = product of:
0.053249314 = sum of:
0.03079474 = weight(_text_:of in 325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03079474 = score(doc=325,freq=106.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.3773406 = fieldWeight in 325, product of:
10.29563 = tf(freq=106.0), with freq of:
106.0 = termFreq=106.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=325)
0.022454573 = product of:
0.044909146 = sum of:
0.044909146 = weight(_text_:science in 325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.044909146 = score(doc=325,freq=28.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.3266824 = fieldWeight in 325, product of:
5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
28.0 = termFreq=28.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=325)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Classification is the essential first step in science. The study of science, as well as the practice of science, will thus benefit from a detailed classification of different types of science. In this book, science - defined broadly to include the social sciences and humanities - is first unpacked into its constituent elements: the phenomena studied, the data used, the theories employed, the methods applied, and the practices of scientists. These five elements are then classified in turn. Notably, the classifications of both theory types and methods allow the key strengths and weaknesses of different theories and methods to be readily discerned and compared. Connections across classifications are explored: should certain theories or phenomena be investigated only with certain methods? What is the proper function and form of scientific paradigms? Are certain common errors and biases in scientific practice associated with particular phenomena, data, theories, or methods? The classifications point to several ways of improving both specialized and interdisciplinary research and teaching, and especially of enhancing communication across communities of scholars. The classifications also support a superior system of document classification that would allow searches by theory and method used as well as causal links investigated.
- Content
- Inhalt: - Chapter 1: Classifying Science: 1.1. A Simple Classificatory Guideline - 1.2. The First "Cut" (and Plan of Work) - 1.3. Some Preliminaries - Chapter 2: Classifying Phenomena and Data: 2.1. Classifying Phenomena - 2.2. Classifying Data - Chapter 3: Classifying Theory: 3.1. Typology of Theory - 3.2. What Is a Theory? - 3.3. Evaluating Theories - 3.4. Types of Theory and the Five Types of Causation - 3.5. Classifying Individual Theories - 3.6. Advantages of a Typology of Theory - Chapter 4: Classifying Method: 4.1. Classifying Methods - 4.2. Typology of Strengths and Weaknesses of Methods - 4.3. Qualitative Versus Quantitative Analysis Revisited - 4.4. Evaluating Methods - 4.5. Classifying Particular Methods Within The Typology - 4.6. Advantages of a Typology of Methods - Chapter 5: Classifying Practice: 5.1. Errors and Biases in ScienceChapter - 5.2. Typology of (Critiques of) Scientific Practice - 5.3. Utilizing This Classification - 5.4. The Five Types of Ethical Analysis - Chapter 6: Drawing Connections Across These Classifications: 6.1. Theory and Method - 6.2. Theory (Method) and Phenomena (Data) - 6.3. Better Paradigms - 6.4. Critiques of Scientific Practice: Are They Correlated with Other Classifications? - Chapter 7: Classifying Scientific Documents: 7.1. Faceted or Enumerative? - 7.2. Classifying By Phenomena Studied - 7.3. Classifying By Theory Used - 7.4. Classifying By Method Used - 7.5 Links Among Subjects - 7.6. Type of Work, Language, and More - 7.7. Critiques of Scientific Practice - 7.8. Classifying Philosophy - 7.9. Evaluating the System - Chapter 8: Concluding Remarks: 8.1. The Classifications - 8.2. Advantages of These Various Classifications - 8.3. Drawing Connections Across Classifications - 8.4. Golden Mean Arguments - 8.5. Why Should Science Be Believed? - 8.6. How Can Science Be Improved? - 8.7. How Should Science Be Taught?
- Footnote
- Rez. in: KO 32(2005) no.2, S.93-95 (H. Albrechtsen): "The book deals with mapping of the structures and contents of sciences, defined broadly to include the social sciences and the humanities. According to the author, the study of science, as well as the practice of science, could benefit from a detailed classification of different types of science. The book defines five universal constituents of the sciences: phenomena, data, theories, methods and practice. For each of these constituents, the author poses five questions, in the well-known 5W format: Who, What, Where, When, Why? - with the addition of the question How? (Szostak 2003). Two objectives of the author's endeavor stand out: 1) decision support for university curriculum development across disciplines and decision support for university students at advanced levels of education in selection of appropriate courses for their projects and to support cross-disciplinary inquiry for researchers and students; 2) decision support for researchers and students in scientific inquiry across disciplines, methods and theories. The main prospective audience of this book is university curriculum developers, university students and researchers, in that order of priority. The heart of the book is the chapters unfolding the author's ideas about how to classify phenomena and data, theory, method and practice, by use of the 5W inquiry model. . . .
Despite its methodological flaws and lack of empirical foundation, the book could potentially bring new ideas to current discussions within the practices of curriculum development and knowledge management as weIl as design of information systems, an classification schemes as tools for knowledge sharing, decision-making and knowledge exploration. I hesitate to recommend the book to students, except to students at advanced levels of study, because of its biased presentation of the new ideas and its basis an secondary literature."
- LCSH
- Classification of sciences
- Series
- Information Science & Knowledge Management ; 7
- Subject
- Classification of sciences
-
Dousa, T.M.: Categories and the architectonics of system in Julius Otto Kaiser's method of systematic indexing (2014)
0.03
0.034809783 = product of:
0.052214675 = sum of:
0.03453767 = weight(_text_:of in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03453767 = score(doc=1418,freq=48.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.42320424 = fieldWeight in 1418, product of:
6.928203 = tf(freq=48.0), with freq of:
48.0 = termFreq=48.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1418)
0.017677005 = product of:
0.03535401 = sum of:
0.03535401 = weight(_text_:22 in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03535401 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = 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)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- 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
-
Vukadin, A.; Slavic, A.: Challenges of facet analysis and concept placement in Universal Classifications : the example of architecture in UDC (2014)
0.03
0.03447683 = product of:
0.051715247 = sum of:
0.03050284 = weight(_text_:of in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03050284 = score(doc=1428,freq=26.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.37376386 = fieldWeight in 1428, product of:
5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
26.0 = termFreq=26.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1428)
0.021212406 = product of:
0.042424813 = sum of:
0.042424813 = weight(_text_:22 in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.042424813 = score(doc=1428,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1428, 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=1428)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- The paper discusses the challenges of faceted vocabulary organization in universal classifications which treat the universe of knowledge as a coherent whole and in which the concepts and subjects in different disciplines are shared, related and combined. The authors illustrate the challenges of the facet analytical approach using, as an example, the revision of class 72 in UDC. The paper reports on the research undertaken in 2013 as preparation for the revision. This consisted of analysis of concept organization in the UDC schedules in comparison with the Art & Architecture Thesaurus and class W of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification. The paper illustrates how such research can contribute to a better understanding of the field and may lead to improvements in the facet structure of this segment of the UDC vocabulary.
- 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
-
Karamuftuoglu, M.: Need for a systemic theory of classification in information science (2007)
0.03
0.034194496 = product of:
0.05129174 = sum of:
0.03050284 = weight(_text_:of in 615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03050284 = score(doc=615,freq=26.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.37376386 = fieldWeight in 615, product of:
5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
26.0 = termFreq=26.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=615)
0.020788899 = product of:
0.041577797 = sum of:
0.041577797 = weight(_text_:science in 615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.041577797 = score(doc=615,freq=6.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.30244917 = fieldWeight in 615, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=615)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- In the article, the author aims to clarify some of the issues surrounding the discussion regarding the usefulness of a substantive classification theory in information science (IS) by means of a broad perspective. By utilizing a concrete example from the High Accuracy Retrieval from Documents (HARD) track of a Text REtrieval Conference (TREC), the author suggests that the bag of words approach to information retrieval (IR) and techniques such as relevance feedback have significant limitations in expressing and resolving complex user information needs. He argues that a comprehensive analysis of information needs involves explicating often-implicit assumptions made by the authors of scholarly documents, as well as everyday texts such as news articles. He also argues that progress in IS can be furthered by developing general theories that are applicable to multiple domains. The concrete example of application of the domain-analytic approach to subject analysis in IS to the aesthetic evaluation of works of information arts is used to support this argument.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.13, S.1977-1987
-
Kumar, K.: Distinctive contribution of Ranganathan to library classification (1992)
0.03
0.034009755 = product of:
0.05101463 = sum of:
0.031211555 = weight(_text_:of in 6991) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031211555 = score(doc=6991,freq=20.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.38244802 = fieldWeight in 6991, product of:
4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
20.0 = termFreq=20.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6991)
0.019803073 = product of:
0.039606147 = sum of:
0.039606147 = weight(_text_:science in 6991) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.039606147 = score(doc=6991,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13747036 = queryWeight, product of:
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.2881068 = fieldWeight in 6991, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.6341193 = idf(docFreq=8627, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6991)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Stresses that S.R. Ranganathan was truly a great scholar, who made rich contribution to different aspects of library and information science, but is better known for his work in the field of library classification. discusses his distinctive contributions to classification such as normative principles, 3 plane model of work, freely faceted classification (involving facet analysis and the synthetic principle), postulational approach, fundamental categories and certain notational devices like the sector device, group notation device, emptying digit device and seminal mnemonic device. Regards these as seminal ideas forming the basis of his theory of library classification. Considers 7th ed. of the Colon Classification as the best example of the application of theses ideas
- Source
- Journal of library and information science. 17(1992) no.2, S.115-127
-
Winske, E.: ¬The development and structure of an urban, regional, and local documents classification scheme (1996)
0.03
0.033907514 = product of:
0.05086127 = sum of:
0.026113462 = weight(_text_:of in 7241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026113462 = score(doc=7241,freq=14.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 7241, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7241)
0.024747808 = product of:
0.049495615 = sum of:
0.049495615 = weight(_text_:22 in 7241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049495615 = score(doc=7241,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 7241, 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=7241)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Discusses the reasons for the decision, taken at Florida International University Library to develop an in house classification system for their local documents collections. Reviews the structures of existing classification systems, noting their strengths and weaknesses in relation to the development of an in house system and describes the 5 components of the new system; geography, subject categories, extensions for population group and/or function, extensions for type of publication, and title/series designator
- Footnote
- Paper presented at conference on 'Local documents, a new classification scheme' at the Research Caucus of the Florida Library Association Annual Conference, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 22 Apr 95
- Source
- Journal of educational media and library sciences. 34(1996) no.1, S.19-34
-
Connaway, L.S.; Sievert, M.C.: Comparison of three classification systems for information on health insurance (1996)
0.03
0.033895414 = product of:
0.05084312 = sum of:
0.02255991 = weight(_text_:of in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02255991 = score(doc=7242,freq=8.0), product of:
0.08160993 = queryWeight, product of:
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = queryNorm
0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 7242, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7242)
0.028283209 = product of:
0.056566417 = sum of:
0.056566417 = weight(_text_:22 in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056566417 = score(doc=7242,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18275474 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.05218836 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
- Abstract
- Reports results of a comparative study of 3 classification schemes: LCC, DDC and NLM Classification to determine their effectiveness in classifying materials on health insurance. Examined 2 hypotheses: that there would be no differences in the scatter of the 3 classification schemes; and that there would be overlap between all 3 schemes but no difference in the classes into which the subject was placed. There was subject scatter in all 3 classification schemes and litlle overlap between the 3 systems
- Date
- 22. 4.1997 21:10:19
