Search (57 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × author_ss:"Smiraglia, R.P."
  1. Smiraglia, R.P.: Classification interaction demonstrated empirically (2014) 0.04 
    0.038747214 = product of:
  0.13561524 = sum of:
    0.04037488 = weight(_text_:classification in 1420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04037488 = score(doc=1420,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.42223644 = fieldWeight in 1420, 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=1420)
    0.042661484 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042661484 = score(doc=1420,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 1420, 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=1420)
    0.04037488 = weight(_text_:classification in 1420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04037488 = score(doc=1420,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.42223644 = fieldWeight in 1420, 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=1420)
    0.0122040035 = product of:
      0.024408007 = sum of:
        0.024408007 = weight(_text_:22 in 1420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024408007 = score(doc=1420,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10514317 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1420, 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=1420)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    Abstract
    There is greater depth in knowledge organization systems beyond the surface of hierarchically-structured concepts. Deconstructed elements of a knowledge organization system share network-like relationships that might be used in interaction with the characteristics of documents to provide "classification interaction" as a means of identifying previously undiscovered relationships. A random sample of UDC call numbers from the online catalog of the Catholic University of Leuven (KU Leuven) is analyzed to discover interactions among conceptual classification, instantiation, and bibliographic demographic characteristics. The associations demonstrated represent ways in which predictable interactions occur among classified bibliographic entities and the components of the rich UDC classification.
    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
  2. Smiraglia, R.P.: Content metadata : an analysis of Etruscan artifacts in a museum of archeology (2005) 0.04 
    0.035239834 = product of:
  0.123339415 = sum of:
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=176,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 176, 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=176)
    0.040303055 = product of:
      0.08060611 = sum of:
        0.08060611 = weight(_text_:schemes in 176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08060611 = score(doc=176,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.5016798 = fieldWeight in 176, 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=176)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.042661484 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042661484 = score(doc=176,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.3649729 = fieldWeight in 176, 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=176)
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=176,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 176, 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=176)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    Abstract
    Metadata schemes target resources as information-packages, without attention to the distinction between content and carrier. Most schema are derived without empirical understanding of the concepts that need to be represented, the ways in which terms representing the central concepts might best be derived, and how metadata descriptions will be used for retrieval. Research is required to resolve this dilemma, and much research will be required if the plethora of schemes that already exist are to be made efficacious for resource description and retrieval. Here I report the results of a preliminary study, which was designed to see whether the bibliographic concept of "the work" could be of any relevance among artifacts held by a museum. I extend the "works metaphor" from the bibliographic to the artifactual domain, by altering the terms of the definition slightly, thus: 1) instantiation is understood as content genealogy. Case studies of Etruscan artifacts from the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology are used to demonstrate the inherence of the work in non-documentary artifacts.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 40(2005) nos.3/4, S.135-151
  3. Scharnhorst, A.; Smiraglia, R.P.; Guéret, C.; Salah, A.A.A.: Knowledge maps for libraries and archives : uses and use cases (2015) 0.03 
    0.030131165 = product of:
  0.10545907 = sum of:
    0.024005229 = weight(_text_:subject in 2304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024005229 = score(doc=2304,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.22353725 = fieldWeight in 2304, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2304)
    0.023310447 = weight(_text_:classification in 2304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023310447 = score(doc=2304,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24377833 = fieldWeight in 2304, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2304)
    0.034832954 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 2304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034832954 = score(doc=2304,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.2979991 = fieldWeight in 2304, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2304)
    0.023310447 = weight(_text_:classification in 2304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023310447 = score(doc=2304,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24377833 = fieldWeight in 2304, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2304)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    Abstract
    At the last Digital Library Conference in London two workshops took place - both (in parallel) devoted to the use of visualization in presenting and navigating large collections. One was entitled Search Is Over! and of the other Knowledge Maps and Information Retrieval. This anecdotal evidence stands for the growing and accelerating quest for visually enhanced interfaces to collections. Researchers from information visualization, computer human interaction, information retrieval, bibliometrics, digital humanities, art and network theory in parallel, often also in ignorance of each other, sometimes in interdisciplinary alliances are engaged in this quest. This paper reviews the current state-of-the-art, with special emphasis on the work of the COST Action TD1210 Knowescape. We discuss in more depth two examples of the use of visual analytics to create a fingerprint of an archive or a library, a data archive and a national library. We present examples from the micro-level of monitoring activities of users, over the meso-level to visualize features of bibliographic records, to macroscopes (a term coined by Katy Borner) into libraries and archives. We also discuss how different ways to perform visual analytics inform each other, how they are related to questions of data mining and statistical analysis, and which methods need to be combined or which communities need to collaborate. To illustrate some of these points we analysed Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) codes in bibliographic datasets of the National Library of Portugal. This is a potential still awaiting to be fully exploited in improving interfaces to subject access and management of classification data. It should be noted that UDC notation strings stored in bibliographic databases require specialist knowledge in both UDC and programming for any visualization tools to be applied. This UDC Seminar which is devoted to authority control is an opportunity to draw attention to the possibilities in visualization whose wider application depends on the readily structured, richer and more transparent subject metadata.
    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
  4. Smiraglia, R.P.: Theoretical considerations in the bibliographic control of music materials in libraries (1985) 0.03 
    0.028566685 = product of:
  0.1333112 = sum of:
    0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023552012 = score(doc=343,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
    0.08620717 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08620717 = score(doc=343,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.73751014 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
    0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023552012 = score(doc=343,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    Bibliographic control does not differ in substance from one type of material to another. Therefore it is not possible to separate the bibliographic control of music materials entirely from the larger domain of bibliographic control activity. The literature of music librarianship is examined for relevant theoretical explanations. Specific problems of description and access are used to show that, in general, the requirements for bibliographic control of music fit neatly into the theoretical structure for all bibliographic control. The primary purpose of descriptive cataloging of musical objects is to identify and differentiate among objects in a library collection. Where the concept of responsibility is relevant, access is provided through the names of composers or performers. Systematic access is provided through co-equal facets: medium, manifestation, and form.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 5(1985) no.3, S.1-16
  5. Smiraglia, R.P.: Keywords, indexing, text analysis : an editorial (2013) 0.03 
    0.026867146 = product of:
  0.09403501 = sum of:
    0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 1390) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016822865 = score(doc=1390,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 1390, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1390)
    0.02513852 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1390) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02513852 = score(doc=1390,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 1390, 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=1390)
    0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 1390) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016822865 = score(doc=1390,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 1390, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1390)
    0.035250753 = product of:
      0.07050151 = sum of:
        0.07050151 = weight(_text_:texts in 1390) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07050151 = score(doc=1390,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16460659 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.42830306 = fieldWeight in 1390, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1390)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    Abstract
    Recently I was asked in earnest why KO doesn't have keywords. To which my reply was to LOL. Really-I laughed, out loud, and then I said "but it does, in every line!" I decided to undertake a little editorial experiment by using the contents of the last two issues of Knowledge Organization - Volume 40 (2013) number 1 contained an editorial, 4 peer-reviewed articles, a book review, a classification issues report, and two substantive letters to the editor. Volume 40 (2013) number 2 contained 5 peer-reviewed articles, some ISKO news, and a bibliographic essay book review; unfortunately at the time this was written number 2 had not been indexed by either service. I decided to compare keywords drawn from Thompson Reuters' Web of ScienceT and EBSCOHost's Library and Information Science and Technology Abstracts with Full Text (LISTA) to the actual keywords pulled from the texts. Full texts were uploaded to Voyeur from Hermeneutica.ca -The Rhetoric of Text Analysis (http://hermeneuti.ca/voyeur/) to derive most frequently used terms (applying an English language stoplist). Table 1 contains those comparative results.
  6. Smiraglia, R.P.; Heuvel, C. van den; Dousa, T.M.: Interactions between elementary structures in universes of knowledge (2011) 0.02 
    0.023410352 = product of:
  0.10924831 = sum of:
    0.04037488 = weight(_text_:classification in 4812) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04037488 = score(doc=4812,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.42223644 = fieldWeight in 4812, 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=4812)
    0.02849856 = product of:
      0.05699712 = sum of:
        0.05699712 = weight(_text_:schemes in 4812) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05699712 = score(doc=4812,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.35474116 = fieldWeight in 4812, 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=4812)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.04037488 = weight(_text_:classification in 4812) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04037488 = score(doc=4812,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.42223644 = fieldWeight in 4812, 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=4812)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    Contrasts in 20th century classification theory relate to a transition from a universe of "knowledge" system towards one of "concepts' Initiatives to develop a Simple Knowledge Organization Systems (SKOS) standard based on classification schemes and taxonomies within the framework of the Semantic Web (SW) are attempts to bridge the gap. Current knowledge organization systems (KOS) seem to reinforce "syntactics" at the expense of semantics. We claim that all structure is syntactic but knowledge structures need to have a semantic component as well. Therefore we consider classifications as artificial languages. The Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) constitutes a natural language-independent notation system that allows for mediating between concepts and knowledge systems. We discuss an elementary theory of knowledge organization based on the structure of knowledge rather than on the content of documents. Semantics becomes not a matter of synonymous concepts, but rather of coordinating knowledge structures. The interactions between these systems represent interactions between different universes of knowledge or concepts.
    Source
    Classification and ontology: formal approaches and access to knowledge: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar, 19-20 September 2011, The Hague, The Netherlands. Eds.: A. Slavic u. E. Civallero
  7. Smiraglia, R.P.: ¬The progress of theory in knowledge organization (2002) 0.02 
    0.023391172 = product of:
  0.1091588 = sum of:
    0.023791125 = weight(_text_:classification in 811) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023791125 = score(doc=811,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24880521 = fieldWeight in 811, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=811)
    0.061576545 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 811) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061576545 = score(doc=811,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.52679294 = fieldWeight in 811, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=811)
    0.023791125 = weight(_text_:classification in 811) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023791125 = score(doc=811,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24880521 = fieldWeight in 811, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=811)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    We understand "theory" to be a system of testable explanatory statements derived from research. In knowledge organization, the generation of theory has moved from an epistemic stance of pragmatism (based on observation of the construction of retrieval tools), to empiricism (based on the results of empirical research). In the nineteenth century, Panizzi (1841), Cutter (1876), and Dewey (1876), developed very pragmatic tools (i.e., catalogs and classifications), explaining as they did so the principles by which their tools were constructed. By 1950, key papers at a University of Chicago Graduate Library School conference on "Bibliographic Organization" recorded the role of bibliographic organization in civilization (Clapp, 1950) and deemed classification the basis of bibliographic organization (Shera, 1950). In 1961, the International Conference on Cataloguing Principles in Paris brought together key thinkers on the design of catalogs. Wilson (1968) expounded a system for bibliographic apparatus, and provided the framework for empirical theoretical development. In 2000, Svenonius asserted that knowledge organization is accomplished through a bibliographic language (or, more properly through a complex set of bibliographic languages), with semantics, syntax, pragmatics, and rules to govern their implementation. Logical positivism notwithstanding, rationalist and historicist stances have begun to come to the fore of late through the promulgation of qualitative methods, most notably those employed in classification, user-interface design, and bibliometric research.
  8. Szostak, R.; Smiraglia, R.P.: Comparative approaches to interdisciplinary KOSs : use cases of converting UDC to BCC (2017) 0.02 
    0.023276636 = product of:
  0.1086243 = sum of:
    0.042009152 = weight(_text_:subject in 3874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042009152 = score(doc=3874,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.3911902 = fieldWeight in 3874, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3874)
    0.033307575 = weight(_text_:classification in 3874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033307575 = score(doc=3874,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.34832728 = fieldWeight in 3874, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3874)
    0.033307575 = weight(_text_:classification in 3874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033307575 = score(doc=3874,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.34832728 = fieldWeight in 3874, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3874)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    We take a small sample of works and compare how these are classified within both the Universal Decimal Classification and the Basic concepts Classification. We examine notational length, expressivity, network effects, and the number of subject strings. One key finding is that BCC typically synthesizes many more terms than UDC in classifying a particular document - but the length of classificatory notations is roughly equivalent for the two KOSs. BCC captures documents with fewer subject strings (generally one) but these are more complex.
  9. Smiraglia, R.P.: Subject access to archival materials using LCSH (1990) 0.02 
    0.022016205 = product of:
  0.10274229 = sum of:
    0.062367413 = weight(_text_:subject in 490) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.062367413 = score(doc=490,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.5807668 = fieldWeight in 490, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=490)
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 490) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=490,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 490, 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=490)
    0.02018744 = weight(_text_:classification in 490) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02018744 = score(doc=490,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21111822 = fieldWeight in 490, 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=490)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    This paper takes for granted that archival materials will be entered into a catalog in which Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) will be used to provide access. The purposes of subject access are discussed. The matter of selecting the appropriate extent of subject cataloging for archival entities is raised. Archival entities will generally require more detailed subject cataloging than published materials. A scheme for subject analysis of archival materials is presented. LCSH is described briefly, and several archival entities are analyzed and provided with LCSH access points to illustrate the methodology employed. The chief advantages of using LCSH for archival materials are its availability, and its ability to cause archival materials to collocate topically with published materials in integrated online systems.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 11(1990) nos.3/4, S.63-90
  10. Smiraglia, R.P.: Be careful what you wish for : lacunae in the FRBR family of models (2012) 0.02 
    0.021816231 = product of:
  0.10180908 = sum of:
    0.033307575 = weight(_text_:classification in 1907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033307575 = score(doc=1907,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.34832728 = fieldWeight in 1907, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1907)
    0.035193928 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 1907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035193928 = score(doc=1907,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 1907, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1907)
    0.033307575 = weight(_text_:classification in 1907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033307575 = score(doc=1907,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.34832728 = fieldWeight in 1907, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1907)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    The library catalog as a catalog of works was an infectious idea, which together with research led to reconceptualization in the form of the FRBR conceptual model. Two categories of lacunae emerge-the expression entity, and gaps in the model such as aggregates and dynamic documents. Evidence needed to extend the FRBR model is available in contemporary research on instantiation. The challenge for the bibliographic community is to begin to think of FRBR as a form of knowledge organization system, adding a final dimension to classification. The papers in the present volume offer a compendium of the promise of the FRBR model.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 50(2012) no.5/7, S.360-368
  11. Smiraglia, R.P.: Curating and virtual shelves : an editorial (2006) 0.02 
    0.02041629 = product of:
  0.07145701 = sum of:
    0.018375175 = weight(_text_:subject in 409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018375175 = score(doc=409,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17111006 = fieldWeight in 409, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=409)
    0.020603718 = weight(_text_:classification in 409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020603718 = score(doc=409,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21547163 = fieldWeight in 409, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=409)
    0.0118744 = product of:
      0.0237488 = sum of:
        0.0237488 = weight(_text_:schemes in 409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0237488 = score(doc=409,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16067243 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.1478088 = fieldWeight in 409, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.3512506 = idf(docFreq=569, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=409)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.020603718 = weight(_text_:classification in 409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020603718 = score(doc=409,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21547163 = fieldWeight in 409, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=409)
  0.2857143 = coord(4/14)
    Content
    An important aspect of what we do is facilitating the curatorial aspect of information retrieval or librarianship. What I mean is that our job is not merely to "mark and park," as generations of catalogers famously have said of both resource description and classification, or even to generate parking spaces (to press my metaphor), but rather our job is to place each entity in the best category, each artifact in the best environment, each resource on the best "shelf" to enhance its usability should it actually be sought for retrieval. Hope Olson (2002) has also written about the limits we create when we exercise the power to name. We must be aware of the consequences of our science. In librarianship in the United States at the moment there is a fair amount of hand-wringing about the future, and this anxiety has been fed by the report of Karen Calhoun on the changing nature of the catalog. Calhoun (2006) suggests that the library community should abandon many of its expensive knowledge organization practices - such as the Library of Congress Subject Headings - in favor of integration of search engines into library catalogs. As logical as this seems on the face of it (and as much as we might often have wished LCSH would go away!), purveyors of such notions have either forgotten or rejected the notion of the library as a social instrument, and therefore the order of things in libraries as an extension of that social role. We must also view knowledge organization then as a cultural enterprise, a social act that has consequences. The ontologies we use to devise categorical schemes imply certain realities. If we say there is no music other than Western Art, why, then there must be no point in paying any attention to music of any other sort, right? And if we say that UFOs are a kind of controversial knowledge, we join the community of non-believers who insist that UFOs do not exist. Surely if we thought they were viable phenomena we would create a concrete class for them (see DDC 001.942). Voila, now we know, UFOs do not exist - the DDC says so. And if a gay adolescent searches for literature to help understand and finds that it all falls under "perversion" then we have oppressed yet another youth (see Campbell 2001). Our actions have social consequences.
    Librarianship incorporates the tools of knowledge organization as part of its role as cultural disseminator. Subject headings and classification were both intended by their 19`h century promulgators - perhaps most notably Dewey and Cutter - to facilitate learning by grouping materials of high quality together. We might call this enhanced serendipity if we think it happens by accident or act of fate, or we might call it curatorship if we realize the responsibility inherent in our social role. The cataloger's job always has been to place each work sensitively among other works related to it, and to make the relationships explicit to facilitate and even encourage selection (see Miksa 1983). Schallier (2004) reported on the use of classification in an online catalog to enhance just such a curatorial purpose. UDC classification codes were exploded into linguistic strings to allow users to search, not just for a given term, but for the terms that occur around it - that is, terms that are adjacent in the classification. These displays are used alongside LCSH to provide enhanced-serendipity for users. What caught my attention was the intention of the project (p. 271): UDC permits librarians to build virtual library shelves, where a document's subjects can be described in thematic categories rather than in detailed verbal terms. And: It is our experience that most end users are not familiar with large controlled vocabularies. UDC could be an answer to this, since its alphanumeric makeup could be used to build a tree structure of terms, which would guide end users in their searchers. There are other implications from this project, including background linkage from UDC codes that drive the "virtual shelves" to subject terms that drive the initial classification. Knowledge organization has consequences in both theory and application."
  12. Smiraglia, R.P.; Cai, X.: Tracking the evolution of clustering, machine learning, automatic indexing and automatic classification in knowledge organization (2017) 0.02 
    0.019760894 = product of:
  0.092217505 = sum of:
    0.03364573 = weight(_text_:classification in 3627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03364573 = score(doc=3627,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.35186368 = fieldWeight in 3627, 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=3627)
    0.03364573 = weight(_text_:classification in 3627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03364573 = score(doc=3627,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.35186368 = fieldWeight in 3627, 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=3627)
    0.024926046 = product of:
      0.04985209 = sum of:
        0.04985209 = weight(_text_:texts in 3627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04985209 = score(doc=3627,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16460659 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03002521 = queryNorm
            0.302856 = fieldWeight in 3627, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4822793 = idf(docFreq=499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3627)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    A very important extension of the traditional domain of knowledge organization (KO) arises from attempts to incorporate techniques devised in the computer science domain for automatic concept extraction and for grouping, categorizing, clustering and otherwise organizing knowledge using mechanical means. Four specific terms have emerged to identify the most prevalent techniques: machine learning, clustering, automatic indexing, and automatic classification. Our study presents three domain analytical case analyses in search of answers. The first case relies on citations located using the ISKO-supported "Knowledge Organization Bibliography." The second case relies on works in both Web of Science and SCOPUS. Case three applies co-word analysis and citation analysis to the contents of the papers in the present special issue. We observe scholars involved in "clustering" and "automatic classification" who share common thematic emphases. But we have found no coherence, no common activity and no social semantics. We have not found a research front, or a common teleology within the KO domain. We also have found a lively group of authors who have succeeded in submitting papers to this special issue, and their work quite interestingly aligns with the case studies we report. There is an emphasis on KO for information retrieval; there is much work on clustering (which involves conceptual points within texts) and automatic classification (which involves semantic groupings at the meta-document level).
  13. Smiraglia, R.P.: "Bridget's Revelationes, Ockham's Tractatus, and Doctrines and Covenanants" : qualitative analysis and epistemological perspectives on theological works (2002) 0.02 
    0.017635275 = product of:
  0.08229795 = sum of:
    0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 5627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023552012 = score(doc=5627,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 5627, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5627)
    0.035193928 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035193928 = score(doc=5627,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.30108726 = fieldWeight in 5627, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5627)
    0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 5627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023552012 = score(doc=5627,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 5627, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5627)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    Random samples of works were drawn from the catalogs of the Bobst Library, New York University, and the Burke Library, Union Theological Seminary, New York. Results indicated: 1) derivative bibliographic relationships existed for somewhere between one-half and two-thirds of theological works; 2) there was a positive correlation between the age of the progenitor work and the extent of derivation; and, 3) forms and genres were useful in a limited way for predicting the incidence of derivative relationships in theological literature. Qualitative analysis reveals the important aspects of the genres "revelation" and "scripture" among theological works.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 33(2002) nos.3/4, S.xx-xx
  14. Coen, G.; Smiraglia, R.P.: Toward better interoperability of the NARCIS classification (2019) 0.02 
    0.015941469 = product of:
  0.11159027 = sum of:
    0.055795137 = weight(_text_:classification in 5399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055795137 = score(doc=5399,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.58349997 = fieldWeight in 5399, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5399)
    0.055795137 = weight(_text_:classification in 5399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055795137 = score(doc=5399,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.58349997 = fieldWeight in 5399, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5399)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Research information can be useful to science stake-holders for discovering, evaluating and planning research activities. In the Netherlands, the institute tasked with the stewardship of national research information is DANS (Data Archiving and Networked Services). DANS is the home of NARCIS, the national portal for research information, which uses a similarly named national research classification. The NARCIS Classification assigns symbols to represent the knowledge bases of contributing scholars. A recent research stream in knowledge organization known as comparative classification uses two or more classifications experimentally to generate empirical evidence about coverage of conceptual content, population of the classes, and economy of classification. This paper builds on that research in order to further understand the comparative impact of the NARCIS Classification alongside a classification designed specifically for information resources. Our six cases come from the DANS project Knowledge Organization System Observatory (KOSo), which itself is classified using the Information Coding Classification (ICC) created in 1982 by Ingetraut Dahlberg. ICC is considered to have the merits of universality, faceting, and a top-down approach. Results are exploratory, indicating that both classifications provide fairly precise coverage. The inflexibility of the NARCIS Classification makes it difficult to express complex concepts. The meta-ontological, epistemic stance of the ICC is apparent in all aspects of this study. Using the two together in the DANS KOS Observatory will provide users with both clarity of scientific positioning and ontological relativity.
    Footnote
    Beitrag eines Special Issue: Research Information Systems and Science Classifications; including papers from "Trajectories for Research: Fathoming the Promise of the NARCIS Classification," 27-28 September 2018, The Hague, The Netherlands.
    Object
    NARCIS classification
  15. Smiraglia, R.P.: Trajectories for research : fathoming the promise of the NARCIS classification (2019) 0.02 
    0.015380906 = product of:
  0.107666336 = sum of:
    0.053833168 = weight(_text_:classification in 5401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053833168 = score(doc=5401,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.5629819 = fieldWeight in 5401, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5401)
    0.053833168 = weight(_text_:classification in 5401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053833168 = score(doc=5401,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.5629819 = fieldWeight in 5401, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5401)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    NARCIS-National Academic Research and Collaborations Information System is the national research portal for the Netherlands' data and research archiving, which is governed by its own NARCIS Classification. The current instantiation of the classification dates from 2015. The classification is currently made up of two classes D for the sciences broadly, and E for interdisciplinary areas. The NARCIS Classification is designed specifically and with care for the contents of the NARCIS data portal. The classification mostly represents the sciences. A few anomalous situations are visible in the ontology of the classification: the humanities occupy one division within the sciences, placed between the life sciences and law; and, the treatment of interdisciplinarity, for which a separate class E is set aside for interdisciplinary sciences. A dump of the NARCIS database was used to analyze the population of the NARCIS classification. The life sciences occupy 34% of the NARCIS database. A framework for research networking systems reveals the NARCIS database and its classification meet most objectives, with the only lapse being the output of entities and attributes to ontologies. The NARCIS Classification is also an occupational classification. The NARCIS Classification supports a vital research portal that, in turn, supports a nationally-coordinated research effort designed to provide better inter-institutional communication of scholarly productivity, thus is in itself an information institution, in which domain-dependence is part of its cultural imperative. The NARCIS Classification incorporates an example of top-down politics in which funded disciplines are included and best represented. A perhaps unintended consequence is the encapsulation of forced views. Trajectories for further discussion with regard to continued development of the NARCIS Classification include identity, interoperability, interdisciplinarity, and synthesis.
    Footnote
    Beitrag eines Special Issue: Research Information Systems and Science Classifications; including papers from "Trajectories for Research: Fathoming the Promise of the NARCIS Classification," 27-28 September 2018, The Hague, The Netherlands.
    Object
    NARCIS classification
  16. Smiraglia, R.P.: Authority control of works: cataloging's chimera? (2004) 0.01 
    0.014827922 = product of:
  0.06919697 = sum of:
    0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 5678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016822865 = score(doc=5678,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 5678, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5678)
    0.035551235 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 5678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035551235 = score(doc=5678,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.30414405 = fieldWeight in 5678, 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=5678)
    0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 5678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016822865 = score(doc=5678,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 5678, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5678)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    Explicit authority control of works is essentially non-existent. Our catalogs are built on a principle of controlling headings, and primarily headings for names of authors. Our syndetic structure creates a spider's web of networked relationships among forms of headings, but it ends there, despite the potential richness of depth among bibliographic entities. Effective authority control of works could yield richness in the catalog that would enhance retrieval capabilities. Works are considered to constitute the intellectual content of informative artifacts that may be collected and ordered for retrieval. In a 1992 study the author examined a random sample of works drawn from the catalog of the Georgetown University Library. For each progenitor work, an instantiation network (also referred to as a bibliographic family) was constituted. A detailed analysis of the linkages that would be required for authority control of these networks is reviewed here. A new study is also presented, in which Library of Congress authority records for the works in this sample are sought and analyzed. Results demonstrate a near total lack of control, with only 5.6% of works for which authority records were found. From a sample of 410 works, of which nearly half have instantiation networks, only 23 works could be said to have implicit authority control. However, many instantiation networks are made up of successive derivations that can be implicitly linked through collocation. The difficult work of explicitly linking instantiations comes with title changes, translations, and containing relations. The empirical evidence in the present study suggests that explicit control of expressions will provide the best control over instantiation networks because it is instantiations such as translations, abridgments, and adaptations that require explicit linking.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 38(2004) nos.3/4, S.xx-xx
  17. Sachs, M.Y.; Smiraglia, R.P.: From encyclopedism to domain-based ontology for knowledge management : the evolution of the Sachs Classification (SC) (2004) 0.01 
    0.012897282 = product of:
  0.09028097 = sum of:
    0.045140486 = weight(_text_:classification in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045140486 = score(doc=2648,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.4720747 = fieldWeight in 2648, 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=2648)
    0.045140486 = weight(_text_:classification in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045140486 = score(doc=2648,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.4720747 = fieldWeight in 2648, 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=2648)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    A historic development from the mid-20th century has promise for utility in the global organization of knowledge in the 20 century and beyond. Essential concepts of knowledge organization such as the origin of domain- and ecology-specific ontologies are explored, and insight into classification warrant is offered. The Sachs Classification as it now exists and the Worldmark Encyclopedia from which it evolved are described. The continuing evolution of knowledge organizations based an the methodology of the Sachs Classification is demonstrated. Promise for enhanced knowledge management, and for management of electronic resources is demonstrated. The Sachs Classification can be viewed as a methodology for potentially powerful knowledge management through the development of domain- and ecology-specific ontologies, and its methodology is demonstrated as applicable to new and evolving knowledge domains.
  18. Scharnhorst, A.; Salah, A.A.; Gao, C.; Suchecki, K.; Smiraglia, R.P.: ¬The evolution of knowledge, and its representation in classification systems (2011) 0.01 
    0.012716891 = product of:
  0.08901823 = sum of:
    0.044509117 = weight(_text_:classification in 4830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044509117 = score(doc=4830,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.46547192 = fieldWeight in 4830, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4830)
    0.044509117 = weight(_text_:classification in 4830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044509117 = score(doc=4830,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.46547192 = fieldWeight in 4830, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4830)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)
    Abstract
    Classification systems are often described as stable reference systems. Sometimes they are accused of being inflexible concerning the coverage of new ideas and scientific fields. Classification as an activity is the basis of all theory-generating research, and also plays a powerful role in social ordering. It is obvious that the ways in which we seek information and in which information is provided has changed dramatically since the emergence of digital information processing and even more with the internet, and web-based technologies. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the notion of a stable knowledge organization classification as a temporary stationary manifestation of an open and evolving system of classification. We compare the structure of the main classes in the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) according to their usage of special auxiliaries to demonstrate the dynamic evolution of the UDC over time, as a stable reference system representing published organized knowledge. We view the ecology of the UDC, and discover that most changes are to the ecology itself as numbers are re-interpreted. This subtle type of change is a key to monitoring the evolution of knowledge as it is represented in the UDC's stable reference system.
    Source
    Classification and ontology: formal approaches and access to knowledge: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar, 19-20 September 2011, The Hague, The Netherlands. Eds.: A. Slavic u. E. Civallero
  19. Smiraglia, R.P.: ¬The "works" phenomenon and best selling books (2007) 0.01 
    0.012596626 = product of:
  0.058784254 = sum of:
    0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016822865 = score(doc=260,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 260, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=260)
    0.02513852 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02513852 = score(doc=260,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 260, 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=260)
    0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016822865 = score(doc=260,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 260, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=260)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    Studying works allows us to see empirically the problem of instantiation of works, both at large and in the catalog. The linkage of relationships among works is a critical goal for information retrieval because the ability to comprehend and select a specific instantiation of a work is crucial for the advancement of scholarship. Hence, the present study examines the instantiation of works among a set of entities known to be popular-best selling books of the 20th century. A sample of best selling works (fiction and non-fiction) from 1900-1999 was constructed. For each work in the sample, all bibliographic records were identified in both OCLC and RLIN as well as instantiations on the World Wide Web. All but one work in the sample exists in multiple instantiations; many have large networks; and complex networks of instantiations have begun to appear in full text on the Web. The results of this study demonstrate the importance of continuing to gather statistical data about works. Solutions devised for the catalog will need to be modified for use in the chaotic environment of the World Wide Web and its successors.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 44(2007) nos.3/4, S.179-195
  20. Smiraglia, R.P.: Rethinking what we catalog : documents as cultural artifacts (2008) 0.01 
    0.012596626 = product of:
  0.058784254 = sum of:
    0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016822865 = score(doc=789,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 789, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=789)
    0.02513852 = weight(_text_:bibliographic in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02513852 = score(doc=789,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11688946 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.893044 = idf(docFreq=2449, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.21506234 = fieldWeight in 789, 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=789)
    0.016822865 = weight(_text_:classification in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016822865 = score(doc=789,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.17593184 = fieldWeight in 789, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=789)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)
    Abstract
    Cataloging is at its most interesting when it is comprehended as part of a larger, meaningful, objective. Resource description is a complex task; but the essence of librarianship is curatorship of a collection, and that sense of curatorial responsibility is one of the things that makes resource description into cataloging-that is, professional responsibility is the difference between the task of transcription and the satisfaction of professional decisions well-made. Part of the essential difference is comprehension of the cultural milieu from which specific resources arise, and the modes of scholarship that might be used to nudge them to reveal their secrets for the advancement of knowledge. In this paper I describe a course designed to lend excitement and professional judgment to the education of future catalogers and collection managers by conveying the notion that all documents are, in fact, cultural artifacts. Part of a knowledge-sensitive curriculum for knowledge organization, the purpose of this course is to go beyond the concept of documents as mere packets of information to demonstrate that each is a product of its time and circumstances. Bibliographic skill leads to greater comfort with the intellectual and cultural forces that impel the creation of documents. Students become comfortable with the curatorial side of cataloging - the placement of each document in its cultural milieu as the goal of resource description, rather than the act of description itself.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 45(2008) no.3, S.25-37

Authors

Years

Types

  • a 55
  • el 2
  • m 2
  • More… Less…

Themes