Search (33 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × author_ss:"Gnoli, C."
  1. Gnoli, C.: Notation (2018) 0.12
    0.124645576 = product of:
      0.29083967 = sum of:
        0.02546139 = weight(_text_:subject in 4650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02546139 = score(doc=4650,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 4650, 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=4650)
        0.03496567 = weight(_text_:classification in 4650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03496567 = score(doc=4650,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.3656675 = fieldWeight in 4650, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4650)
        0.050928485 = product of:
          0.10185697 = sum of:
            0.10185697 = weight(_text_:bliss in 4650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.10185697 = score(doc=4650,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.21478812 = queryWeight, product of:
                  7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = queryNorm
                0.4742207 = fieldWeight in 4650, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4650)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.10185697 = weight(_text_:bliss in 4650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10185697 = score(doc=4650,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21478812 = queryWeight, product of:
              7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.4742207 = fieldWeight in 4650, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              7.1535926 = idf(docFreq=93, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4650)
        0.042661484 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 4650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042661484 = score(doc=4650,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 4650, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4650)
        0.03496567 = weight(_text_:classification in 4650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03496567 = score(doc=4650,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.3656675 = fieldWeight in 4650, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4650)
      0.42857143 = coord(6/14)
    
    Abstract
    Notations are systems of symbols that can be combined according to syntactical rules to represent meanings in a specialized domain. In knowledge organization, they are systems of numerals, letters and punctuation marks associated to a concept that mechanically produce helpful sequences of them for arranging books on shelves, browsing subjects in directories and displaying items in catalogues. Most bibliographic classification systems, like Dewey Decimal Classification, use a positional notation allowing for expression of increasingly specific subjects by additional digits. However, some notations like that of Bliss Bibliographic Classification are purely ordinal and do not reflect the hierarchical degree of a subject. Notations can also be expressive of the syntactical structure of compound subjects (common auxiliaries, facets etc.) in various ways. In the digital media, notation can be recorded and managed in databases and exploited to provide appropriate search and display functionalities.
  2. Gnoli, C.: Animals belonging to the emperor : enabling viewpoint warrant in classification (2011) 0.05
    0.0536792 = product of:
      0.1878772 = sum of:
        0.042435654 = weight(_text_:subject in 1803) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042435654 = score(doc=1803,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.39516178 = fieldWeight in 1803, 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=1803)
        0.04758225 = weight(_text_:classification in 1803) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04758225 = score(doc=1803,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.49761042 = fieldWeight in 1803, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1803)
        0.05027704 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1803) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05027704 = score(doc=1803,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.43012467 = fieldWeight in 1803, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1803)
        0.04758225 = weight(_text_:classification in 1803) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04758225 = score(doc=1803,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.49761042 = fieldWeight in 1803, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1803)
      0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    
    Series
    IFLA series on bibliographic control; vol. 42
    Source
    Subject access: preparing for the future. Conference on August 20 - 21, 2009 in Florence, the IFLA Classification and Indexing Section sponsored an IFLA satellite conference entitled "Looking at the Past and Preparing for the Future". Eds.: P. Landry et al
  3. Gnoli, C.: Classification transcends library business : the case of BiblioPhil (2010) 0.05
    0.050776143 = product of:
      0.1421732 = sum of:
        0.021217827 = weight(_text_:subject in 3698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021217827 = score(doc=3698,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.19758089 = fieldWeight in 3698, 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=3698)
        0.03761707 = weight(_text_:classification in 3698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03761707 = score(doc=3698,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.39339557 = fieldWeight in 3698, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3698)
        0.035551235 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035551235 = score(doc=3698,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.30414405 = fieldWeight in 3698, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3698)
        0.03761707 = weight(_text_:classification in 3698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03761707 = score(doc=3698,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.39339557 = fieldWeight in 3698, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3698)
        0.010170003 = product of:
          0.020340007 = sum of:
            0.020340007 = weight(_text_:22 in 3698) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.020340007 = score(doc=3698,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3698, 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=3698)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.35714287 = coord(5/14)
    
    Abstract
    Although bibliographic classifications usually adopt a perspective different from that of object classifications, the two have obvious relationships. These become especially relevant when users are looking for knowledge scattered in a wide variety of forms and media. This is an increasingly common situation, as library catalogues now coexist in the global digital environment with catalogues of archives, of museums, of commercial products, and many other information resources. In order to make the subject content of all these resources searchable, a broader conception of classification is needed, that can be applied to an knowledge item, rather than only bibliographic materials. To illustrate this we take an example of the research on bagpipes in Northern Italian folklore. For this kind of research, the most effective search strategy is a cross-media one, looking for many different knowledge sources such as published documents, police archives, painting details, museum specimens, organizations devoted to related subjects. To provide satisfying results for this kind of search, the traditional disciplinary approach to classification is not sufficient. Tools are needed in which knowledge items dealing with a phenomenon of interest can be retrieved independently from the other topics with which it is combined, the disciplinary context, and the medium where it occurs. This can be made possible if the basic units of classification are taken to be the phenomena treated, as recommended in the León Manifesto, rather than disciplines or other aspect features. The concept of bagpipes should be retrievable and browsable in any combination with other phenomena, disciplines, media etc. Examples are given of information sources that could be managed by this freely-faceted technique of classification.
    Date
    22. 7.2010 20:40:08
  4. Gnoli, C.: ¬The meaning of facets in non-disciplinary classifications (2006) 0.04
    0.041248932 = product of:
      0.14437126 = sum of:
        0.03761707 = weight(_text_:classification in 2291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03761707 = score(doc=2291,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.39339557 = fieldWeight in 2291, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2291)
        0.033585876 = product of:
          0.06717175 = sum of:
            0.06717175 = weight(_text_:schemes in 2291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06717175 = score(doc=2291,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = queryNorm
                0.41806644 = fieldWeight in 2291, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2291)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.035551235 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035551235 = score(doc=2291,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.30414405 = fieldWeight in 2291, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2291)
        0.03761707 = weight(_text_:classification in 2291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03761707 = score(doc=2291,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.39339557 = fieldWeight in 2291, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2291)
      0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    
    Abstract
    Disciplines are felt by many to be a constraint in classification, though they are a structuring principle of most bibliographic classification schemes. A non-disciplinary approach has been explored by the Classification Research Group, and research in this direction has been resumed recently by the Integrative Level Classification project. This paper focuses on the role and the definition of facets in non-disciplinary schemes. A generalized definition of facets is suggested with reference to predicate logic, allowing for having facets of phenomena as well as facets of disciplines. The general categories under which facets are often subsumed can be related ontologically to the evolutionary sequence of integrative levels. As a facet can be semantically connected with phenomena from any other part of a general scheme, its values can belong to three types, here called extra-defined foci (either special or general), and context-defined foci. Non-disciplinary freely faceted classification is being tested by applying it to little bibliographic samples stored in a MySQL database, and developing Web search interfaces to demonstrate possible uses of the described techniques.
  5. Lardera, M.; Gnoli, C.; Rolandi, C.; Trzmielewski, M.: Developing SciGator, a DDC-based library browsing tool (2017) 0.04
    0.038049582 = product of:
      0.10653883 = sum of:
        0.02546139 = weight(_text_:subject in 4144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02546139 = score(doc=4144,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 4144, 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=4144)
        0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 4144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02018744 = score(doc=4144,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 4144, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4144)
        0.02849856 = product of:
          0.05699712 = sum of:
            0.05699712 = weight(_text_:schemes in 4144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.05699712 = score(doc=4144,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = queryNorm
                0.35474116 = fieldWeight in 4144, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4144)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 4144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02018744 = score(doc=4144,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 4144, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4144)
        0.0122040035 = product of:
          0.024408007 = sum of:
            0.024408007 = weight(_text_:22 in 4144) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.024408007 = score(doc=4144,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4144, 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=4144)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.35714287 = coord(5/14)
    
    Abstract
    Exploring collections by their subject matter is an important functionality for library users. We developed an online tool called SciGator in order to allow users to browse the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) classes used in different libraries at the University of Pavia and to perform different types of search in the OPAC. Besides navigation of DDC hierarchies, SciGator suggests "see-also" relationships with related classes and maps equivalent classes in local shelving schemes, thus allowing the expansion of search queries to include subjects contiguous to the initial one. We are developing new features, including the possibility to expand searches even more to national and international catalogues.
    Content
    Beitrag eines Special Issue: ISKO-Italy: 8' Incontro ISKO Italia, Università di Bologna, 22 maggio 2017, Bologna, Italia.
  6. Gnoli, C.: Progress in synthetic classification : towards unique definition of concepts (2007) 0.04
    0.035585366 = product of:
      0.12454877 = sum of:
        0.029138058 = weight(_text_:classification in 2527) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029138058 = score(doc=2527,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.3047229 = fieldWeight in 2527, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2527)
        0.04113413 = product of:
          0.08226826 = sum of:
            0.08226826 = weight(_text_:schemes in 2527) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.08226826 = score(doc=2527,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = queryNorm
                0.51202476 = fieldWeight in 2527, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2527)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.02513852 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2527) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02513852 = score(doc=2527,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 2527, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2527)
        0.029138058 = weight(_text_:classification in 2527) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029138058 = score(doc=2527,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.3047229 = fieldWeight in 2527, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2527)
      0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    
    Abstract
    The evolution of bibliographic classification schemes, from the end of the 19th century to our time, shows a trend of increasing possibilities to combine concepts in a classmark. While the early schemes, like DDC and LCC, were largely enumerative, more and more synthetic devices have appeared with common auxiliaries, facets, and phase relationships. The last editions of UDC and the UDC-derived FATKS project follow this evolution, by introducing more specific phase relationships and more common auxiliaries, like those for general properties and processes. This agrees with the Farradane's principle that each concept should have a place of unique definition, instead of being re-notated in each context where it occurs. This evolution appears to be unfinished, as even in most synthetic schemes many concepts have a different notation according to the disciplinary main classes where they occur. To overcome this limitation, main classes should be defined in terms of phenomena rather than disciplines: the Integrative Level Classification (ILC) research project is currently exploring this possibility. Examples with UDC, FATKS, and ILC notations are discussed.
  7. Gnoli, C.; Santis, R. de; Pusterla, L.: Commerce, see also Rhetoric : cross-discipline relationships as authority data for enhanced retrieval (2015) 0.04
    0.035463274 = product of:
      0.12412146 = sum of:
        0.03761707 = weight(_text_:classification in 2299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03761707 = score(doc=2299,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.39339557 = fieldWeight in 2299, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2299)
        0.0237488 = product of:
          0.0474976 = sum of:
            0.0474976 = weight(_text_:schemes in 2299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0474976 = score(doc=2299,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = queryNorm
                0.2956176 = fieldWeight in 2299, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2299)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.02513852 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02513852 = score(doc=2299,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 2299, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2299)
        0.03761707 = weight(_text_:classification in 2299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03761707 = score(doc=2299,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.39339557 = fieldWeight in 2299, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2299)
      0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    
    Abstract
    Subjects in a classification scheme are often related to other subjects belonging to different hierarchies. This problem was identified already by Hugh of Saint Victor (1096?-1141). Still with present-time bibliographic classifications, a user browsing the class of architecture under the hierarchy of arts may miss relevant items classified in building or in civil engineering under the hierarchy of applied sciences. To face these limitations we have developed SciGator, a browsable interface to explore the collections of all scientific libraries at the University of Pavia. Besides showing subclasses of a given class, the interface points users to related classes in the Dewey Decimal Classification, or in other local schemes, and allows for expanded queries that include them. This is made possible by using a special field for related classes in the database structure which models classification authority data. Ontologically, many relationships between classes in different hierarchies are cases of existential dependence. Dependence can occur between disciplines in such disciplinary classifications as Dewey (e.g. architecture existentially depends on building), or between phenomena in such phenomenon-based classifications as the Integrative Levels Classification (e.g. fishing as a human activity existentially depends on fish as a class of organisms). We provide an example of its representation in OWL and discuss some details of it.
    Source
    Classification and authority control: expanding resource discovery: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar 2015, 29-30 October 2015, Lisbon, Portugal. Eds.: Slavic, A. u. M.I. Cordeiro
  8. Gnoli, C.: Phylogenetic classification (2006) 0.03
    0.02992327 = product of:
      0.13964193 = sum of:
        0.045140486 = weight(_text_:classification in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045140486 = score(doc=164,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.4720747 = fieldWeight in 164, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=164)
        0.049360957 = product of:
          0.098721914 = sum of:
            0.098721914 = weight(_text_:schemes in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.098721914 = score(doc=164,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = queryNorm
                0.6144297 = fieldWeight in 164, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=164)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.045140486 = weight(_text_:classification in 164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045140486 = score(doc=164,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.4720747 = fieldWeight in 164, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=164)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    One general principle in the construction of classification schemes is that of grouping phenomena to be classified according to their shared origin in evolution or history (phylogenesis). In general schemes, this idea has been applied by several classificationists in identifying a series of integrative levels, each originated from the previous ones, and using them as the main classes. In special schemes, common origin is a key principle in many domains: examples are given from the classification of climates, of organisms, and of musical instruments. Experience from these domains, however, suggests that using common origin alone, as done in cladistic taxonomy, can produce weird results, like having birds as a subclass of reptiles; while the most satisfying classifications use a well balanced mix of common origin and similarity. It is discussed how this could be applied to the development of a general classification of phenomena in an emergentist perspective, and how the resulting classification tree could be structured. Charles Bennett's notion of logical depth appears to be a promising conceptual tool for this purpose.
  9. Gnoli, C.; Merli, G.; Pavan, G.; Bernuzzi, E.; Priano, M.: Freely faceted classification for a Web-based bibliographic archive : the BioAcoustic Reference Database (2010) 0.03
    0.029314283 = product of:
      0.102599986 = sum of:
        0.03364573 = weight(_text_:classification in 3739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03364573 = score(doc=3739,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.35186368 = fieldWeight in 3739, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3739)
        0.02513852 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02513852 = score(doc=3739,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 3739, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3739)
        0.03364573 = weight(_text_:classification in 3739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03364573 = score(doc=3739,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.35186368 = fieldWeight in 3739, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3739)
        0.010170003 = product of:
          0.020340007 = sum of:
            0.020340007 = weight(_text_:22 in 3739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.020340007 = score(doc=3739,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3739, 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=3739)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    
    Abstract
    The Integrative Level Classification (ILC) research project is experimenting with a knowledge organization system based on phenomena rather than disciplines. Each phenomenon has a constant notation, which can be combined with that of any other phenomenon in a freely faceted structure. Citation order can express differential focality of the facets. Very specific subjects can have long classmarks, although their complexity is reduced by various devices. Freely faceted classification is being tested by indexing a corpus of about 3300 papers in the interdisciplinary domain of bioacoustics. The subjects of these papers often include phenomena from a wide variety of integrative levels (mechanical waves, animals, behaviour, vessels, fishing, law, ...) as well as information about the methods of study, as predicted in the León Manifesto. The archive is recorded in a MySQL database, and can be fed and searched through PHP Web interfaces. Indexer's work is made easier by mechanisms that suggest possible classes on the basis of matching title words with terms in the ILC schedules, and synthesize automatically the verbal caption corresponding to the classmark being edited. Users can search the archive by selecting and combining values in each facet. Search refinement should be improved, especially for the cases where no record, or too many records, match the faceted query. However, experience is being gained progressively, showing that freely faceted classification by phenomena, theories, and methods is feasible and successfully working.
    Source
    Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly
  10. Gnoli, C.: "Classic"vs. "freely" faceted classification (2007) 0.03
    0.028796013 = product of:
      0.1343814 = sum of:
        0.044100422 = weight(_text_:subject in 715) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044100422 = score(doc=715,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.41066417 = fieldWeight in 715, 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=715)
        0.045140486 = weight(_text_:classification in 715) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045140486 = score(doc=715,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.4720747 = fieldWeight in 715, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=715)
        0.045140486 = weight(_text_:classification in 715) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045140486 = score(doc=715,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.4720747 = fieldWeight in 715, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=715)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    Claudio Gnoli of the University of Pavia in Italy and Chair of ISKO Italy, explored the relative merits of classic 'faceted classification' (FC) and 'freely faceted classification' (FFC). In classic FC, the facets (and their relationships) which might be combined to express a compound subject, are restricted to those prescribed as inherent in the subject area. FC is therefore largely bounded by and restricted to a specific subject area. At the other extreme, free classification (as in the Web or folksonomies) allows the combination of values from multiple, disparate domains where the relationships among the elements are often indeterminate, and the semantics obscure. Claudio described how punched cards were an early example of free classification, and cited the coordination of dogs : postmen : bites as one where the absence of defined relationships made the semantics ambiguous
  11. Binding, C.; Gnoli, C.; Tudhope, D.: Migrating a complex classification scheme to the semantic web : expressing the Integrative Levels Classification using SKOS RDF (2021) 0.03
    0.026474785 = product of:
      0.123549 = sum of:
        0.041207436 = weight(_text_:classification in 600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041207436 = score(doc=600,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.43094325 = fieldWeight in 600, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=600)
        0.04113413 = product of:
          0.08226826 = sum of:
            0.08226826 = weight(_text_:schemes in 600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.08226826 = score(doc=600,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = queryNorm
                0.51202476 = fieldWeight in 600, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=600)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.041207436 = weight(_text_:classification in 600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041207436 = score(doc=600,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.43094325 = fieldWeight in 600, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=600)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose The Integrative Levels Classification (ILC) is a comprehensive "freely faceted" knowledge organization system not previously expressed as SKOS (Simple Knowledge Organization System). This paper reports and reflects on work converting the ILC to SKOS representation. Design/methodology/approach The design of the ILC representation and the various steps in the conversion to SKOS are described and located within the context of previous work considering the representation of complex classification schemes in SKOS. Various issues and trade-offs emerging from the conversion are discussed. The conversion implementation employed the STELETO transformation tool. Findings The ILC conversion captures some of the ILC facet structure by a limited extension beyond the SKOS standard. SPARQL examples illustrate how this extension could be used to create faceted, compound descriptors when indexing or cataloguing. Basic query patterns are provided that might underpin search systems. Possible routes for reducing complexity are discussed. Originality/value Complex classification schemes, such as the ILC, have features which are not straight forward to represent in SKOS and which extend beyond the functionality of the SKOS standard. The ILC's facet indicators are modelled as rdf:Property sub-hierarchies that accompany the SKOS RDF statements. The ILC's top-level fundamental facet relationships are modelled by extensions of the associative relationship - specialised sub-properties of skos:related. An approach for representing faceted compound descriptions in ILC and other faceted classification schemes is proposed.
  12. Gnoli, C.; Poli, R.: Levels of reality and levels of representation (2004) 0.03
    0.026445266 = product of:
      0.12341124 = sum of:
        0.04037488 = weight(_text_:classification in 3533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04037488 = score(doc=3533,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.42223644 = fieldWeight in 3533, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3533)
        0.042661484 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 3533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042661484 = score(doc=3533,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 3533, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3533)
        0.04037488 = weight(_text_:classification in 3533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04037488 = score(doc=3533,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.42223644 = fieldWeight in 3533, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3533)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    Ontology, in its philosophical meaning, is the discipline investigating the structure of reality. Its findings can be relevant to knowledge organization, and models of knowledge can, in turn, offer relevant ontological suggestions. Several philosophers in time have pointed out that reality is structured into a series of integrative levels, like the physical, the biological, the mental, and the cultural, and that each level plays as a base for the emergence of more complex levels. More detailed theories of levels have been developed by Nicolai Hartmann and James K. Feibleman, and these have been considered as a source for structuring principles in bibliographic classification by both the Classification Research Group (CRG) and Ingetraut Dahlberg. CRG's analysis of levels and of their possible application to a new general classification scheme based an phenomena instead of disciplines, as it was formulated by Derek Austin in 1969, is examined in detail. Both benefits and open problems in applying integrative levels to bibliographic classification are pointed out.
  13. Szostak, R.; Gnoli, C.; López-Huertas, M.: Interdisciplinary knowledge organization 0.03
    0.026409969 = product of:
      0.12324652 = sum of:
        0.052123744 = weight(_text_:classification in 3804) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052123744 = score(doc=3804,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.5451049 = fieldWeight in 3804, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3804)
        0.01899904 = product of:
          0.03799808 = sum of:
            0.03799808 = weight(_text_:schemes in 3804) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03799808 = score(doc=3804,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = queryNorm
                0.2364941 = fieldWeight in 3804, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3804)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.052123744 = weight(_text_:classification in 3804) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052123744 = score(doc=3804,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.5451049 = fieldWeight in 3804, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3804)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    This book proposes a novel approach to classification, discusses its myriad advantages, and outlines how such an approach to classification can best be pursued. It encourages a collaborative effort toward the detailed development of such a classification. This book is motivated by the increased importance of interdisciplinary scholarship in the academy, and the widely perceived shortcomings of existing knowledge organization schemes in serving interdisciplinary scholarship. It is designed for scholars of classification research, knowledge organization, the digital environment, and interdisciplinarity itself. The approach recommended blends a general classification with domain-specific classification practices. The book reaches a set of very strong conclusions:
    -Existing classification systems serve interdisciplinary research and teaching poorly. -A novel approach to classification, grounded in the phenomena studied rather than disciplines, would serve interdisciplinary scholarship much better. It would also have advantages for disciplinary scholarship. The productivity of scholarship would thus be increased. -This novel approach is entirely feasible. Various concerns that might be raised can each be addressed. The broad outlines of what a new classification would look like are developed. -This new approach might serve as a complement to or a substitute for existing classification systems. -Domain analysis can and should be employed in the pursuit of a general classification. This will be particularly important with respect to interdisciplinary domains. -Though the impetus for this novel approach comes from interdisciplinarity, it is also better suited to the needs of the Semantic Web, and a digital environment more generally. Though the primary focus of the book is on classification systems, most chapters also address how the analysis could be extended to thesauri and ontologies. The possibility of a universal thesaurus is explored. The classification proposed has many of the advantages sought in ontologies for the Semantic Web. The book is therefore of interest to scholars working in these areas as well.
    LCSH
    Classification / Research
    Subject
    Classification / Research
  14. Gnoli, C.: Classifying phenomena : Part 1: dimensions (2016) 0.03
    0.02629966 = product of:
      0.122731745 = sum of:
        0.03761707 = weight(_text_:classification in 3417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03761707 = score(doc=3417,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.39339557 = fieldWeight in 3417, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3417)
        0.0474976 = product of:
          0.0949952 = sum of:
            0.0949952 = weight(_text_:schemes in 3417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0949952 = score(doc=3417,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = queryNorm
                0.5912352 = fieldWeight in 3417, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3417)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.03761707 = weight(_text_:classification in 3417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03761707 = score(doc=3417,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.39339557 = fieldWeight in 3417, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3417)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    This is the first part of a study on the classification of phenomena. It starts by addressing the status of classification schemes among knowledge organization systems (KOSs), as some features of them have been overlooked in recent reviews of KOS types. It then considers the different dimensions implied in a KOS, which include: the observed phenomena, the cultural and disciplinary perspective under which they are treated, the features of documents carrying such treatment, the collections of such documents as managed in libraries, archives or museums, the information needs prompting to search and use these collections and the people experiencing such different information needs. Until now, most library classification schemes have given priority to the perspective dimension as they first list disciplines. However, an increasing number of voices are now considering the possibility of classification schemes giving priority to phenomena as advocated in the León Manifesto. Although these schemes first list phenomena as their main classes, they can as well express perspective or the other relevant dimensions that occur in a classified item. The independence of a phenomenon-based classification from the institutional divisions into disciplines contributes to giving knowledge organization a more proactive and influential role.
  15. Almeida, P. de; Gnoli, C.: Fiction in a phenomenon-based classification (2021) 0.03
    0.025019486 = product of:
      0.1167576 = sum of:
        0.036007844 = weight(_text_:subject in 712) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036007844 = score(doc=712,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.33530587 = fieldWeight in 712, 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=712)
        0.04037488 = weight(_text_:classification in 712) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04037488 = score(doc=712,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.42223644 = fieldWeight in 712, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=712)
        0.04037488 = weight(_text_:classification in 712) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04037488 = score(doc=712,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.42223644 = fieldWeight in 712, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=712)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    In traditional classification, fictional works are indexed only by their form, genre, and language, while their subject content is believed to be irrelevant. However, recent research suggests that this may not be the best approach. We tested indexing of a small sample of selected fictional works by Integrative Levels Classification (ILC2), a freely faceted system based on phenomena instead of disciplines and considered the structure of the resulting classmarks. Issues in the process of subject analysis, such as selection of relevant vs. non-relevant themes and citation order of relevant ones, are identified and discussed. Some phenomena that are covered in scholarly literature can also be identified as relevant themes in fictional literature and expressed in classmarks. This can allow for hybrid search and retrieval systems covering both fiction and nonfiction, which will result in better leveraging of the knowledge contained in fictional works.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 59(2021) no.5, p.477-491
  16. Gnoli, C.: Categories and facets in integrative levels (2008) 0.02
    0.021377182 = product of:
      0.09976018 = sum of:
        0.028549349 = weight(_text_:classification in 1806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028549349 = score(doc=1806,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.29856625 = fieldWeight in 1806, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1806)
        0.042661484 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042661484 = score(doc=1806,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 1806, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1806)
        0.028549349 = weight(_text_:classification in 1806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028549349 = score(doc=1806,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.29856625 = fieldWeight in 1806, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1806)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    Facets and general categories used in bibliographic classification have been based on a disciplinary organization of knowledge. However, facets and categories of phenomena independent from disciplines can be identified similarly. Phenomena can be classified according to a series of integrative levels (layers), which in turn can be grouped into the major strata of form, matter, life, mind, society and culture, agreeing with Nicolai Hartmann's ontology. Unlike a layer, a stratum is not constituted of elements of the lower ones; rather, it represents the formal pattern of the lower ones, like the horse hoof represents the shape of the steppe. Bibliographic categories can now be seen in the light of level theory: some categories are truly general, while others only appear at a given level, being the realization of a general category in the specific context of the level: these are the facets of that level. In the notation of the Integrative Level Classification project, categories and facets are represented by digits, and displayed in a Web interface with the help of colours.
  17. Gnoli, C.; Pusterla, L.; Bendiscioli, A.; Recinella, C.: Classification for collections mapping and query expansion (2016) 0.02
    0.021092122 = product of:
      0.0984299 = sum of:
        0.03496567 = weight(_text_:classification in 3102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03496567 = score(doc=3102,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.3656675 = fieldWeight in 3102, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3102)
        0.02849856 = product of:
          0.05699712 = sum of:
            0.05699712 = weight(_text_:schemes in 3102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.05699712 = score(doc=3102,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = queryNorm
                0.35474116 = fieldWeight in 3102, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3102)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.03496567 = weight(_text_:classification in 3102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03496567 = score(doc=3102,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.3656675 = fieldWeight in 3102, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3102)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    Dewey Decimal Classification has been used to organize materials owned by the three scientific libraries at the University of Pavia, and to allow integrated browsing in their union catalogue through SciGator, a home built web-based user interface. Classification acts as a bridge between collections located in different places and shelved according to different local schemes. Furthermore, cross-discipline relationships recorded in the system allow for expanded queries that increase recall. Advantages and possible improvements of such a system are discussed.
  18. Gnoli, C.: Faceted classifications as linked data : a logical analysis (2021) 0.02
    0.021092122 = product of:
      0.0984299 = sum of:
        0.03496567 = weight(_text_:classification in 452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03496567 = score(doc=452,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.3656675 = fieldWeight in 452, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=452)
        0.02849856 = product of:
          0.05699712 = sum of:
            0.05699712 = weight(_text_:schemes in 452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.05699712 = score(doc=452,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = queryNorm
                0.35474116 = fieldWeight in 452, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=452)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.03496567 = weight(_text_:classification in 452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03496567 = score(doc=452,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.3656675 = fieldWeight in 452, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=452)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    Faceted knowledge organization systems have sophisticated logical structures, making their representation as linked data a demanding task. The term facet is often used in ambiguous ways: while in thesauri facets only work as semantic categories, in classification schemes they also have syntactic functions. The need to convert the Integrative Levels Classification (ILC) into SKOS stimulated a more general analysis of the different kinds of syntactic facets, as can be represented in terms of RDF properties and their respective domain and range. A nomenclature is proposed, distinguishing between common facets, which can be appended to any class, that is, have an unrestricted domain; and special facets, which are exclusive to some class, that is, have a restricted domain. In both cases, foci can be taken from any other class (unrestricted range: free facets), or only from subclasses of an existing class (parallel facets), or be defined specifically for the present class (bound facets). Examples are given of such cases in ILC and in the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC).
  19. Gnoli, C.: Classifying phenomena : part 4: themes and rhemes (2018) 0.02
    0.019918663 = product of:
      0.092953764 = sum of:
        0.04037488 = weight(_text_:classification in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04037488 = score(doc=4152,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.42223644 = fieldWeight in 4152, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4152)
        0.04037488 = weight(_text_:classification in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04037488 = score(doc=4152,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.42223644 = fieldWeight in 4152, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4152)
        0.0122040035 = product of:
          0.024408007 = sum of:
            0.024408007 = weight(_text_:22 in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.024408007 = score(doc=4152,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4152, 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=4152)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    This is the fourth in a series of papers on classification based on phenomena instead of disciplines. Together with types, levels and facets that have been discussed in the previous parts, themes and rhemes are further structural components of such a classification. In a statement or in a longer document, a base theme and several particular themes can be identified. Base theme should be cited first in a classmark, followed by particular themes, each with its own facets. In some cases, rhemes can also be expressed, that is new information provided about a theme, converting an abstract statement ("wolves, affected by cervids") into a claim that some thing actually occurs ("wolves are affected by cervids"). In the Integrative Levels Classification rhemes can be expressed by special deictic classes, including those for actual specimens, anaphoras, unknown values, conjunctions and spans, whole universe, anthropocentric favoured classes, and favoured host classes. These features, together with rules for pronounciation, make a classification of phenomena a true language, that may be suitable for many uses.
    Date
    17. 2.2018 18:22:25
  20. Gnoli, C.: Naturalism vs pragmatism in knowledge organization (2004) 0.02
    0.01728813 = product of:
      0.080677934 = sum of:
        0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 2663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02018744 = score(doc=2663,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 2663, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2663)
        0.040303055 = product of:
          0.08060611 = sum of:
            0.08060611 = weight(_text_:schemes in 2663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.08060611 = score(doc=2663,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03002521 = queryNorm
                0.5016798 = fieldWeight in 2663, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2663)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
        0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 2663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02018744 = score(doc=2663,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 2663, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2663)
      0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    
    Abstract
    Several authors remark that categories used in languages, including indexing ones, are affected by cultural biases, and do not reflect reality in an objective way. Hence knowledge organization would essentially be determined by pragmatic factors. However, human categories are connected with the structure of reality through biological bonds, and this allows for a naturalistic approach too. Naturalism has been adopted by Farradane in proposing relational categories, and by Dahlberg and the CRG in applying the theory of integrative levels to general classification schemes. The latter is especially relevant for possible developments in making the structure of schemes independent from disciplines, and in applying it to digital information retrieval.