Search (39 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × author_ss:"Dahlberg, I."
  1. Dahlberg, I.: Towards a future for knowledge organization (2006) 0.04 
    0.037264794 = product of:
  0.11179438 = sum of:
    0.06711562 = weight(_text_:applications in 1476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06711562 = score(doc=1476,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17247584 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.38913056 = fieldWeight in 1476, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4025097 = idf(docFreq=1471, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1476)
    0.011975031 = weight(_text_:of in 1476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011975031 = score(doc=1476,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.19546966 = fieldWeight in 1476, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1476)
    0.03270373 = weight(_text_:systems in 1476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03270373 = score(doc=1476,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 1476, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1476)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    Discusses the origin and evolution of the Information Coding Classification (ICC); its theoretical basis, and structure and advantageous attributes for organizing knowledge. Pleads that the considerable work already done on the system should be taken up and developed by interested research groups through collaborative effort. Concludes with some thoughts on the future of knowledge organization for information retrieval and other applications
    Source
    Knowledge organization, information systems and other essays: Professor A. Neelameghan Festschrift. Eds.: K.S. Raghavan u. K.N. Prasad
  2. De Luca, E.W.; Dahlberg, I.: Including knowledge domains from the ICC into the multilingual lexical linked data cloud (2014) 0.02 
    0.017013326 = product of:
  0.051039975 = sum of:
    0.011833867 = weight(_text_:of in 1493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011833867 = score(doc=1493,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.19316542 = fieldWeight in 1493, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1493)
    0.020439833 = weight(_text_:systems in 1493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020439833 = score(doc=1493,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 1493, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1493)
    0.018766273 = product of:
      0.037532546 = sum of:
        0.037532546 = weight(_text_:22 in 1493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037532546 = score(doc=1493,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1493, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1493)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    A lot of information that is already available on the Web, or retrieved from local information systems and social networks is structured in data silos that are not semantically related. Semantic technologies make it emerge that the use of typed links that directly express their relations are an advantage for every application that can reuse the incorporated knowledge about the data. For this reason, data integration, through reengineering (e.g. triplify), or querying (e.g. D2R) is an important task in order to make information available for everyone. Thus, in order to build a semantic map of the data, we need knowledge about data items itself and the relation between heterogeneous data items. In this paper, we present our work of providing Lexical Linked Data (LLD) through a meta-model that contains all the resources and gives the possibility to retrieve and navigate them from different perspectives. We combine the existing work done on knowledge domains (based on the Information Coding Classification) within the Multilingual Lexical Linked Data Cloud (based on the RDF/OWL EurowordNet and the related integrated lexical resources (MultiWordNet, EuroWordNet, MEMODATA Lexicon, Hamburg Methaphor DB).
    Date
    22. 9.2014 19:01:18
    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
  3. Dahlberg, I.: Library catalogs in the Internet : switching for future subject access (1996) 0.02 
    0.015921833 = product of:
  0.07164825 = sum of:
    0.016802425 = weight(_text_:of in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016802425 = score(doc=5171,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
    0.054845825 = weight(_text_:systems in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.054845825 = score(doc=5171,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.45554203 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    A multitude of library catalogs are now being entered into the Internet. Their differing classification and subject headings systems used for subject access call for a switching system, a black box to facilitate the location of subject fields and their subjects in these systems. The principles on which such a switching system must be built in order to provide the necessary insight, surveyability, reproducebility and ease of concept combinability (e.g. in cases of interdisciplinary subjects) are outlined and compared with the BSO which hance once been established by the FID in order to serve a switching purpose. The advantages of using the Information Coding Classification (ICC) as a switching system in the Internet are demonstrated, likewise the methodology needed to establish the necessary correlation between library classification systems (and if possible also subject heading systems and thesauri) and the ICC. Finally some organizational implications for creating a switching for 6 universal systems in use are described
    Source
    Knowledge organization and change: Proceedings of the Fourth International ISKO Conference, 15-18 July 1996, Library of Congress, Washington, DC. Ed.: R. Green
  4. Dahlberg, I.: Classification theory, yesterday and today (1976) 0.02 
    0.015256289 = product of:
  0.0686533 = sum of:
    0.022403233 = weight(_text_:of in 1618) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022403233 = score(doc=1618,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.36569026 = fieldWeight in 1618, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1618)
    0.046250064 = weight(_text_:systems in 1618) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046250064 = score(doc=1618,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.38414678 = fieldWeight in 1618, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1618)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Until very recently, classification theory was held to be nothing but an expressed or unconscious knowledge framed in intuitively given reasons for the subdivision and arrangement of any universe. Today, after clarification of the elements of classification systems as well as the basis of concept relationshios it is possible to apply a number of principles in the evaluation of existing systems as well as in the construction of new ones and by this achieving relatively predictable and repeatable results
  5. Dahlberg, I.: Classification structure principles : Investigations, experiences, conclusions (1998) 0.02 
    0.01508584 = product of:
  0.06788628 = sum of:
    0.025402877 = weight(_text_:of in 47) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025402877 = score(doc=47,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.41465378 = fieldWeight in 47, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=47)
    0.042483397 = weight(_text_:systems in 47) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042483397 = score(doc=47,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.35286134 = fieldWeight in 47, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=47)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    For the purpose of establishing compatibility between the major universal classification systems in use, their structure principles were investigated and crucial points of difficulty for this undertaking were looked for, in order to relate the guiding classes, e.g. of the DDC, UDC, LCC, BC, and CC, to the subject groups of the ICC. With the help of a matrix into whose fields all subject groups of the ICC were inserted, it was not difficult at all to enter the notations of the universal classification systems mentioned. However, differences in terms of level of subdivision were found, as well as differences of occurrences. Most, though not all, of the fields of the ICC matrix could be completely filled with the corresponding notations of the other systems. Through this matrix, a first table of some 81 equivalences was established on which further work regarding the next levels of subject fields can be based
    Source
    Structures and relations in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the 5th International ISKO-Conference, Lille, 25.-29.8.1998. Ed.: W. Mustafa el Hadi et al
  6. Dahlberg, I.: On the theory of the concept (1979) 0.01 
    0.014892921 = product of:
  0.067018144 = sum of:
    0.017962547 = weight(_text_:of in 1615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017962547 = score(doc=1615,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 1615, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1615)
    0.0490556 = weight(_text_:systems in 1615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0490556 = score(doc=1615,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.4074492 = fieldWeight in 1615, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1615)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Source
    Ordering systems for global information networks. Proc. of the 3rd Int. Study Conf. on Classification Research, Bombay 1975
  7. Dahlberg, I.: ¬The compatibility guidelines : a re-evaluation (1996) 0.01 
    0.014892921 = product of:
  0.067018144 = sum of:
    0.017962547 = weight(_text_:of in 6047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017962547 = score(doc=6047,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 6047, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6047)
    0.0490556 = weight(_text_:systems in 6047) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0490556 = score(doc=6047,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.4074492 = fieldWeight in 6047, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6047)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Source
    Compatibility and integration of order systems: Research Seminar Proceedings of the TIP/ISKO Meeting, Warsaw, 13-15 September 1995
  8. Dahlberg, I.: ¬The basis of a new universal classification system seen from a philosophy of science point of view (1992) 0.01 
    0.014121411 = product of:
  0.06354635 = sum of:
    0.021062955 = weight(_text_:of in 2100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021062955 = score(doc=2100,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 2100, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2100)
    0.042483397 = weight(_text_:systems in 2100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042483397 = score(doc=2100,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.35286134 = fieldWeight in 2100, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2100)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    The implications of contributions from philosophy of science to classification theory and the construction of a new universal classification system are discussed. Starting from the purposes of universal systems and what has been considered so far to serve as main classes of the six existing major universal systems, the following theories have been treated: Theory of (1) knowledge, (2) knowledge elements and units, (3) systems, (4) the science concept, (5) knowledge fields including criteria for their identification, (6) a logical syntax, (7) an overall structure of object and aspect areas. Concludingly an evaluation was made with special regard to the representability (notation) of such a theory-based universal concept system by computer and in telecommunication. This, as well as the heuristics contained in such a theory-based system facilitate its general applicability
  9. Dahlberg, I.: Zur Theorie des Begriffs (1974) 0.01 
    0.013903585 = product of:
  0.06256613 = sum of:
    0.020082738 = weight(_text_:of in 1617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020082738 = score(doc=1617,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 1617, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1617)
    0.042483397 = weight(_text_:systems in 1617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042483397 = score(doc=1617,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.35286134 = fieldWeight in 1617, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1617)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    A concept is regarded as the common element of both classification systems and thesauri. Reality and knowledge are not represented by words or terms but by the meanings "behind" these tokens. A concept of, say, an object, a property of an object, a process, etc. is derived from verbal statements on these as subjects and may therefore be defined as the whole of true and possible predicates that can be collected on a given subject. It is from these predicates that the characteristics of the corresponding concepts can be derived. Common characteristics in different concepts lead to relationsbetween concepts, which relations in turn are factors for the formation of concept systems. Different kinds of relationships as well as different kinds of concepts are distinguished. It is pointed out that an orderly supply of the elements for propositions (informative statements) on new knowledge requires the construction and availability of such concept systems
  10. Dahlberg, I.: DIN 32705: the German standard on classification systems : a critical appraisal (1992) 0.01 
    0.013674567 = product of:
  0.061535552 = sum of:
    0.019052157 = weight(_text_:of in 2669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019052157 = score(doc=2669,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 2669, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2669)
    0.042483397 = weight(_text_:systems in 2669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042483397 = score(doc=2669,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.35286134 = fieldWeight in 2669, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2669)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    The German standard on the construction and further development of classification systems is introduced with its background. The contents of its 8 chapters is described. A critical appraisal considers (1) the fact that the standard does not openly deal with the optimal form of CS, viz. faceted CS, but treats them as one possibility among others, although the authors seem to have had this kind in mind when recommending the section on steps of CS development and other sections of the standard; (2) that the standard does not give any recommendation on the computerization of the necessary activities in establishing CS; and (3) that a convergence of CS and thesauri in the form of faceted CS and faceted thesauri has not been taken into consideration. - Concludingly some doubts are raised whether a standard would be the best medium to provide recommendations or guidelines for the construction of such systems. More adequate ways for this should be explored
  11. Dahlberg, I.: ¬A faceted classification of general concepts (2011) 0.01 
    0.012571532 = product of:
  0.056571893 = sum of:
    0.021169065 = weight(_text_:of in 4824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021169065 = score(doc=4824,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 4824, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4824)
    0.03540283 = weight(_text_:systems in 4824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03540283 = score(doc=4824,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.29405114 = fieldWeight in 4824, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4824)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    General concepts are all those form-categorial concepts which - attached to a specific concept of a classification system or thesaurus - can help to widen, sometimes even in a syntactical sense, the understanding of a case. In some existing universal classification systems such concepts have been named "auxiliaries" or "common isolates" as in the Colon Classification (CC). However, by such auxiliaries, different kinds of such concepts are listed, e.g. concepts of space and time, concepts of races and languages and concepts of kinds of documents, next to them also concepts of kinds of general activities, properties, persons, and institutions. Such latter kinds form part of the nine aspects ruling the facets in the Information Coding Classification (ICC) through the principle of using a Systematiser for the subdivision of subject groups and fields. Based on this principle and using and extending existing systems of such concepts, e.g. which A. Diemer had presented to the German Thesaurus Committee as well as those found in the UDC, in CC and attached to the Subject Heading System of the German National Library, a faceted classification is proposed for critical assessment, necessary improvement and possible later use in classification systems and thesauri.
    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
  12. Dahlberg, I.: Kompatibilität und Integration : Probleme und Lösungen in der Wissensorganisation (2008) 0.01 
    0.011127857 = product of:
  0.050075352 = sum of:
    0.021169065 = weight(_text_:of in 1677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021169065 = score(doc=1677,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 1677, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1677)
    0.02890629 = weight(_text_:systems in 1677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02890629 = score(doc=1677,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 1677, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1677)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    The trend in the fifties and sixties of the past century away from the use of universal classification systems such as the UDC towards establishing thesauri in special subject fields for the description of the conceptual contents of documents lead documentalists soon to realize that the necessary common tool for a collaboration among centers of similar subject fields was lacking. Therefore compatibility and integration studies began between the different thesauri of such fields, leading often to more comprehensive thesauri, such as macrothesauri. The paper describes this historic development and also the solutions found at the 1995 ISKO-Conference in Warsaw/Poland on Compatibility and Integration as given in its papers, its recommendations and also in the conceptual frame of its comprehensive bibliography on this topic. In conclusion a new solution is presented oriented toward combining the use of a universal classification system with the new developments of ontologies and their problem of interoperability and heterogeneity.
    Content
    Enthält im Anhang (S.48-49) die: "Recommendations of the Research Seminar on Compatibility and Integration of Order Systems organized by the International Society fpr Knowledge Organization (ISKO) and the Society for Professional Information (TIP), Warsaw, Poland, September 13-15, 1995".
    Source
    Kompatibilität, Medien und Ethik in der Wissensorganisation - Compatibility, Media and Ethics in Knowledge Organization: Proceedings der 10. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation Wien, 3.-5. Juli 2006 - Proceedings of the 10th Conference of the German Section of the International Society of Knowledge Organization Vienna, 3-5 July 2006. Ed.: H.P. Ohly, S. Netscher u. K. Mitgutsch
  13. Dahlberg, I.: ¬The Information Coding Classification (ICC) : a modern, theory-based fully-faceted, universal system of knowledge fields (2008) 0.01 
    0.011127857 = product of:
  0.050075352 = sum of:
    0.021169065 = weight(_text_:of in 1854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021169065 = score(doc=1854,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 1854, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1854)
    0.02890629 = weight(_text_:systems in 1854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02890629 = score(doc=1854,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 1854, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1854)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Introduction into the structure, contents and specifications (especially the Systematifier) of the Information Coding Classification, developed in the seventies and used in many ways by the author and a few others following its publication in 1982. Its theoretical basis is explained consisting in (1) the Integrative Level Theory, following an evolutionary approach of ontical areas, and integrating also on each level the aspects contained in the sequence of the levels, (2) the distinction between categories of form and categories of being, (3) the application of a feature of Systems Theory (namely the element position plan) and (4) the inclusion of a concept theory, distinguishing four kinds of relationships, originated by the kinds of characteristics (which are the elements of concepts to be derived from the statements on the properties of referents of concepts). Its special Subject Groups on each of its nine levels are outlined and the combinatory facilities at certain positions of the Systematifier are shown. Further elaboration and use have been suggested, be it only as a switching language between the six existing universal classification systems at present in use internationally.
  14. Dahlberg, I.: ¬The future of classification in libraries and networks : a theoretical point of view (1995) 0.01 
    0.010324167 = product of:
  0.04645875 = sum of:
    0.017552461 = weight(_text_:of in 5563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017552461 = score(doc=5563,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.28651062 = fieldWeight in 5563, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5563)
    0.02890629 = weight(_text_:systems in 5563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02890629 = score(doc=5563,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 5563, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5563)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Some time ago, some people said classification is dead, we don't need it any more. They probably thought that subject headings could do the job of the necessary subject analysis and shelving of books. However, all of a sudden in 1984 the attitude changed, when an OCLC study of Karen Markey started to show what could be done even with an "outdated system" such as the Dewey Decimal Classification in the computer, once it was visible on a screen to show the helpfulness of a classified library catalogue called an OPAC; classification was brought back into the minds of doubtful librarians and of all those who thought they would not need it any longer. But the problem once phrased: "We are stuck with the two old systems, LCC and DDC" would not find a solution and is still with us today. We know that our systems are outdated but we seem still to be unable to replace them with better ones. What then should one do and advise, knowing that we need something better? Perhaps a new universal ordering system which more adequately represents and mediates the world of our present day knowledge? If we were to develop it from scratch, how would we create it and implement it in such a way that it would be acceptable to the majority of the present intellectual world population?
  15. Dahlberg, I.: Why a new universal classification system is needed (2017) 0.01 
    0.010040707 = product of:
  0.04518318 = sum of:
    0.016567415 = weight(_text_:of in 3614) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016567415 = score(doc=3614,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 3614, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3614)
    0.028615767 = weight(_text_:systems in 3614) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028615767 = score(doc=3614,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 3614, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3614)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Research history of the last 70 years highlights various systems for contents assessment and retrieval of scientific literature, such as universal classifications, thesauri, ontologies etc., which have followed developments of their own, notwithstanding a general trend towards interoperability, i.e. either to become instruments for cooperation or to widen their scope to encompass neighbouring fields within their framework. In the case of thesauri and ontologies, the endeavour to upgrade them into a universal system was bound to miscarry. This paper purports to indicate ways to gain from past experience and possibly rally material achievements while updating and promoting the ontologically-based faceted Information Coding Classification as a progressive universal system fit for meeting whatever requirements in the fields of information and science at large.
  16. Dahlberg, I.: International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO) (2009) 0.01 
    0.008942596 = product of:
  0.04024168 = sum of:
    0.019801848 = weight(_text_:of in 4693) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019801848 = score(doc=4693,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.32322758 = fieldWeight in 4693, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4693)
    0.020439833 = weight(_text_:systems in 4693) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020439833 = score(doc=4693,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 4693, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4693)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    The aims, tasks, activities, and achievements of the International Society for Knowledge Organization (1989-) are presented. ISKO is that group of scholars and practitioners who feel responsible for questions pertaining to the conceptual organization and processing of knowledge, the scientific bases of which lie in knowledge drawn from the fields of logic, organization science, psychology, science theory, informatics, semiotics, linguistics, and philosophy. It aims at giving advice in the construction, perfection, and application of such organizational tools as classification systems, taxonomies, thesauri, terminologies, as well as their use for indexing purposes and thereby for the retrieval of information. Events leading up to the founding of ISKO in 1989 are described. The aims and objectives of ISKO according to its statutes are mentioned, as well as its organization, its biennial international conferences with their proceedings volumes, and the establishment of a further conference series and a textbook series. The drive and success of coordinators in establishing chapters in many countries is reviewed as well. The activities of the chapters (mainly by their own meetings and conferences) and subsequently their publications during the past years are also included. The idea and structure of ISKO's official journal-Knowledge Organization-is explained, and ISKO's Web site is given. Finally, the need for the Society is discussed, and its possible future is considered.
    Source
    Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed. M.J. Bates
  17. Dahlberg, I.: Was ist Wissensorganisation? (2017) 0.01 
    0.008687538 = product of:
  0.03909392 = sum of:
    0.010478153 = weight(_text_:of in 3473) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010478153 = score(doc=3473,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.17103596 = fieldWeight in 3473, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3473)
    0.028615767 = weight(_text_:systems in 3473) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028615767 = score(doc=3473,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 3473, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3473)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Source
    Theorie, Semantik und Organisation von Wissen: Proceedings der 13. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und dem 13. Internationalen Symposium der Informationswissenschaft der Higher Education Association for Information Science (HI) Potsdam (19.-20.03.2013): 'Theory, Information and Organization of Knowledge' / Proceedings der 14. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und Natural Language & Information Systems (NLDB) Passau (16.06.2015): 'Lexical Resources for Knowledge Organization' / Proceedings des Workshops der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) auf der SEMANTICS Leipzig (1.09.2014): 'Knowledge Organization and Semantic Web' / Proceedings des Workshops der Polnischen und Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) Cottbus (29.-30.09.2011): 'Economics of Knowledge Production and Organization'. Hrsg. von W. Babik, H.P. Ohly u. K. Weber
  18. Dahlberg, I.: How to improve ISKO's standing : ten desiderata for knowledge organization (2011) 0.01 
    0.008070363 = product of:
  0.036316633 = sum of:
    0.015876798 = weight(_text_:of in 4300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015876798 = score(doc=4300,freq=72.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 4300, product of:
          8.485281 = tf(freq=72.0), with freq of:
            72.0 = termFreq=72.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4300)
    0.020439833 = weight(_text_:systems in 4300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020439833 = score(doc=4300,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 4300, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4300)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    In 2009 ISKO had its 20th anniversary, a time for review and reflection on what might be envisaged to further Knowledge Organization in the forthcoming years. In addition to some proposals set forth at the end of this contribution, ten desiderata appear urgent. A preliminary condition to any other consideration is the recognition of the fundamental difference in the organization of knowledge between the concept (i.e., the unit of knowledge)-the conceptual level-and the word, term or code-the verbal level-and the need for implementing this distinction in theory and practice (Desideratum 1). On this basis, some further proposals are enunciated. The 2nd proposition concerns the surveying of extant classification systems, thesauri, and other means of organizing, ordering, and indexing knowledge; the 3rd proposition envisages the improvement of expert training in Knowledge Organization (KO), also with regard to curricula and professional acknowledgment. Nr.4) refers to the professionalization of the hitherto rather neglected national ISKO secretariats, as well as the international ISKO secretariat. Nr.5) urges a systematic survey of KO-relevant concepts to serve as a model or standard for other subject fields, Nr.6) claims the establishment of KO Institutes, Nr.7) views consultancy to the effect that anybody interested in KO may approach ISKO for help, Nr 8) urges ISKO's promotion of membership and chapters in as many countries as possible, Nr.9) presses for intensification of ISKO's publication activities, and Nr.10) pleads for KO as a scientific discipline on its own.
    Content
    1. Recognize the units in an order system (classification system, thesaurus, ontology, etc.) as concepts/knowledge units, analyse their essential characteristics, and use these characteristics when creating a Knowledge Order System. 2. Recognize the units in an order system (classification system, thesaurus, ontology, etc.) as concepts/knowledge units, analyse their essential characteristics, and use these characteristics when creating a Knowledge Order System. 3. An ISKO group should elaborate a curriculum for the various KO activities to be published after approval by the ISKO Executive Board (EB). Together with this, the qualifying titles of different professionals (teacher, professor, system designer etc.) should also be discussed by the ISKO EB, adopted and proposed for acknowledgement by official institutions; and, 2) It may be possible for ISKO to establish its own Academy and also take care of teaching with the elaborated curricula. 4. Every national ISKO Chapter and the General Secretariat should make efforts to employ a paid expert for the necessary secretarial work, and seek financial support therefore from national or international organizations, in order to become more professionalised. 5. The ISKO Executive Board should decide to elaborate and publish an order system of all KO-relevant concepts to serve as a model and perhaps sometimes as a standard for similar work in other scientific disciplines and knowledge fields.
    6. Establishment of national Knowledge Organization Institutes should be scheduled by national chapters, planned energetically and submitted to corresponding administrative authorities for support. They could be attached to research institutions, e.g., the Max-Planck or Fraunhofer Institutes in Germany or to universities. Their scope and research areas relate to the elaboration of knowledge systems of subject related concepts, according to Desideratum 1, and may be connected to training activities and KOsubject-related research work. 7. ISKO experts should not accept to be impressed by Internet and Computer Science, but should demonstrate their expertise more actively on the public plane. They should tend to take a leading part in the ISKO Secretariats and the KO Institutes, and act as consultants and informants, as well as editors of statistics and other publications. 8. All colleagues trained in the field of classification/indexing and thesauri construction and active in different countries should be identified and approached for membership in ISKO. This would have to be accomplished by the General Secretariat with the collaboration of the experts in the different secretariats of the countries, as soon as they start to work. The more members ISKO will have, the greater will be its reputation and influence. But it will also prove its professionalism by the quality of its products, especially its innovating conceptual order systems to come. 9. ISKO should-especially in view of global expansion-intensify the promotion of knowledge about its own subject area through the publications mentioned here and in further publications as deemed necessary. It should be made clear that, especially in ISKO's own publications, professional subject indexes are a sine qua non. 10. 1) Knowledge Organization, having arisen from librarianship and documentation, the contents of which has many points of contact with numerous application fields, should-although still linked up with its areas of descent-be recognized in the long run as an independent autonomous discipline to be located under the science of science, since only thereby can it fully play its role as an equal partner in all application fields; and, 2) An "at-a-first-glance knowledge order" could be implemented through the Information Coding Classification (ICC), as this system is based on an entirely new approach, namely based on general object areas, thus deviating from discipline-oriented main classes of the current main universal classification systems. It can therefore recoup by simple display on screen the hitherto lost overview of all knowledge areas and fields. On "one look", one perceives 9 object areas subdivided into 9 aspects which break down into 81 subject areas with their 729 subject fields, including further special fields. The synthesis and place of order of all knowledge becomes thus evident at a glance to everybody. Nobody would any longer be irritated by the abundance of singular apparently unrelated knowledge fields or become hesitant in his/her understanding of the world.
    Footnote
    Slightly revised translation into English of a contribution given at the 11th German ISKO Conference, Bonn, 19-21 Oct.2009. Vgl.: http://www.ergon-verlag.de/isko_ko/downloads/ko_38_2011_1g.pdf.
  19. Dahlberg, I.: Normung und Klassifikation (1978) 0.01 
    0.0058976705 = product of:
  0.053079035 = sum of:
    0.053079035 = product of:
      0.10615807 = sum of:
        0.10615807 = weight(_text_:22 in 1612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10615807 = score(doc=1612,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.77380234 = fieldWeight in 1612, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=1612)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Source
    DK-Mitteilungen. 22(1978) Nr.5/6, S.13-18
  20. Dahlberg, I.: Kolloquium Einheitsklassifikation (1975) 0.01 
    0.0058976705 = product of:
  0.053079035 = sum of:
    0.053079035 = product of:
      0.10615807 = sum of:
        0.10615807 = weight(_text_:22 in 1625) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10615807 = score(doc=1625,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.77380234 = fieldWeight in 1625, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=1625)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)
    Source
    Nachrichten für Dokumentation. 26(1975), S.22-25

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 28
  • d 10
  • sp 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 38
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Themes