-
Karamuftuoglu, M.: Need for a systemic theory of classification in information science (2007)
0.07
0.06657348 = product of:
0.14979032 = sum of:
0.020938806 = weight(_text_:information in 615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020938806 = score(doc=615,freq=14.0), product of:
0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.3078936 = fieldWeight in 615, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=615)
0.040700447 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040700447 = score(doc=615,freq=6.0), product of:
0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 615, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=615)
0.049836725 = weight(_text_:techniques in 615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049836725 = score(doc=615,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17065717 = queryWeight, product of:
4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.2920283 = fieldWeight in 615, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=615)
0.03831434 = product of:
0.07662868 = sum of:
0.07662868 = weight(_text_:theories in 615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07662868 = score(doc=615,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21161452 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.36211446 = fieldWeight in 615, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=615)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.44444445 = coord(4/9)
- Abstract
- In the article, the author aims to clarify some of the issues surrounding the discussion regarding the usefulness of a substantive classification theory in information science (IS) by means of a broad perspective. By utilizing a concrete example from the High Accuracy Retrieval from Documents (HARD) track of a Text REtrieval Conference (TREC), the author suggests that the bag of words approach to information retrieval (IR) and techniques such as relevance feedback have significant limitations in expressing and resolving complex user information needs. He argues that a comprehensive analysis of information needs involves explicating often-implicit assumptions made by the authors of scholarly documents, as well as everyday texts such as news articles. He also argues that progress in IS can be furthered by developing general theories that are applicable to multiple domains. The concrete example of application of the domain-analytic approach to subject analysis in IS to the aesthetic evaluation of works of information arts is used to support this argument.
- Source
- Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.13, S.1977-1987
-
Moss, R.: Categories and relations : Origins of two classification theories (1964)
0.06
0.056439936 = product of:
0.16931981 = sum of:
0.10768185 = weight(_text_:line in 1816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10768185 = score(doc=1816,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21724595 = queryWeight, product of:
5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.4956679 = fieldWeight in 1816, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1816)
0.010552166 = weight(_text_:information in 1816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010552166 = score(doc=1816,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 1816, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1816)
0.051085785 = product of:
0.10217157 = sum of:
0.10217157 = weight(_text_:theories in 1816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10217157 = score(doc=1816,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21161452 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.4828193 = fieldWeight in 1816, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1816)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- The resemblances between the categories of Aristotle and those of Ranganathan are shown. These categories are examined in the light of criticism made by Bertrand Russell and are shown to have no validity. Similar comparisons are made between the relations of Huma and Farradane. Farradane's work is a return to Hume, who is generally acknowledged as one of the founders of the British school of empirical philosophy which continues to Russell and beyond. In Russell's work lies the most promising line of development for information classification and indexing
-
Hjoerland, B.: Theories of knowledge organization - theories of knowledge (2017)
0.04
0.03981422 = product of:
0.17916398 = sum of:
0.015992278 = weight(_text_:information in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.015992278 = score(doc=3494,freq=6.0), product of:
0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
0.1631717 = sum of:
0.12643087 = weight(_text_:theories in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.12643087 = score(doc=3494,freq=4.0), product of:
0.21161452 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.59745836 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
0.03674083 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03674083 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13565971 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Pages
- S.22-36
- Source
- Theorie, Semantik und Organisation von Wissen: Proceedings der 13. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und dem 13. Internationalen Symposium der Informationswissenschaft der Higher Education Association for Information Science (HI) Potsdam (19.-20.03.2013): 'Theory, Information and Organization of Knowledge' / Proceedings der 14. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und Natural Language & Information Systems (NLDB) Passau (16.06.2015): 'Lexical Resources for Knowledge Organization' / Proceedings des Workshops der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) auf der SEMANTICS Leipzig (1.09.2014): 'Knowledge Organization and Semantic Web' / Proceedings des Workshops der Polnischen und Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) Cottbus (29.-30.09.2011): 'Economics of Knowledge Production and Organization'. Hrsg. von W. Babik, H.P. Ohly u. K. Weber
-
Minnigh, L.D.: Chaos in informatie, onderwerpsontsluiting en kennisoverdracht : de rol van de wetenschappelijke bibliotheek (1993)
0.04
0.036110785 = product of:
0.10833235 = sum of:
0.010552166 = weight(_text_:information in 6606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010552166 = score(doc=6606,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 6606, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6606)
0.031331215 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031331215 = score(doc=6606,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 6606, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6606)
0.06644897 = weight(_text_:techniques in 6606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06644897 = score(doc=6606,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17065717 = queryWeight, product of:
4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.3893711 = fieldWeight in 6606, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6606)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- Existing classification systems require constant expansion to accomodate new subject fields, while subject indexing techniques fail to display the relationship of subjects. Relational databases are currently being developed which will guide users through the differing levels of subjects, using the 'cartography of science'. Such developments will enable librarians to play a more interactive role in information retrieval and will have far-reaching consequences on the design of subject-indexing systems
-
Svenonius, E.: ¬The epistemological foundations of knowledge representations (2004)
0.04
0.035315663 = product of:
0.10594698 = sum of:
0.010552166 = weight(_text_:information in 766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010552166 = score(doc=766,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 766, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=766)
0.04430903 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04430903 = score(doc=766,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 766, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=766)
0.051085785 = product of:
0.10217157 = sum of:
0.10217157 = weight(_text_:theories in 766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10217157 = score(doc=766,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21161452 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.4828193 = fieldWeight in 766, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=766)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- This paper looks at the epistemological foundations of knowledge representations embodied in retrieval languages. It considers questions such as the validity of knowledge representations and their effectiveness for the purposes of retrieval and automation. The knowledge representations it considers are derived from three theories of meaning that have dominated twentieth-century philosophy.
- Footnote
- Artikel in einem Themenheft: The philosophy of information
-
Broughton, V.: ¬The need for a faceted classification as the basis of all methods of information retrieval (2006)
0.03
0.033823986 = product of:
0.10147195 = sum of:
0.01615464 = weight(_text_:information in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01615464 = score(doc=2874,freq=12.0), product of:
0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.23754507 = fieldWeight in 2874, product of:
3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
12.0 = termFreq=12.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2874)
0.043786705 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.043786705 = score(doc=2874,freq=10.0), product of:
0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.37365708 = fieldWeight in 2874, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2874)
0.04153061 = weight(_text_:techniques in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04153061 = score(doc=2874,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17065717 = queryWeight, product of:
4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.24335694 = fieldWeight in 2874, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2874)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The aim of this article is to estimate the impact of faceted classification and the faceted analytical method on the development of various information retrieval tools over the latter part of the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Design/methodology/approach - The article presents an examination of various subject access tools intended for retrieval of both print and digital materials to determine whether they exhibit features of faceted systems. Some attention is paid to use of the faceted approach as a means of structuring information on commercial web sites. The secondary and research literature is also surveyed for commentary on and evaluation of facet analysis as a basis for the building of vocabulary and conceptual tools. Findings - The study finds that faceted systems are now very common, with a major increase in their use over the last 15 years. Most LIS subject indexing tools (classifications, subject heading lists and thesauri) now demonstrate features of facet analysis to a greater or lesser degree. A faceted approach is frequently taken to the presentation of product information on commercial web sites, and there is an independent strand of theory and documentation related to this application. There is some significant research on semi-automatic indexing and retrieval (query expansion and query formulation) using facet analytical techniques. Originality/value - This article provides an overview of an important conceptual approach to information retrieval, and compares different understandings and applications of this methodology.
- Footnote
- Beitrag in einem Themenheft: UK library & information schools: UCL SLAIS.
-
Wang, Z.; Chaudhry, A.S.; Khoo, C.S.G.: Using classification schemes and thesauri to build an organizational taxonomy for organizing content and aiding navigation (2008)
0.03
0.03353305 = product of:
0.100599155 = sum of:
0.076142564 = weight(_text_:line in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.076142564 = score(doc=2346,freq=4.0), product of:
0.21724595 = queryWeight, product of:
5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.35049015 = fieldWeight in 2346, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2346)
0.013959204 = weight(_text_:information in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013959204 = score(doc=2346,freq=14.0), product of:
0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.20526241 = fieldWeight in 2346, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2346)
0.01049738 = product of:
0.02099476 = sum of:
0.02099476 = weight(_text_:22 in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02099476 = score(doc=2346,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13565971 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2346, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2346)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- Purpose - Potential and benefits of classification schemes and thesauri in building organizational taxonomies cannot be fully utilized by organizations. Empirical data of building an organizational taxonomy by the top-down approach of using classification schemes and thesauri appear to be lacking. The paper seeks to make a contribution in this regard. Design/methodology/approach - A case study of building an organizational taxonomy was conducted in the information studies domain for the Division of Information Studies at Nanyang Technology University, Singapore. The taxonomy was built by using the Dewey Decimal Classification, the Information Science Taxonomy, two information systems taxonomies, and three thesauri (ASIS&T, LISA, and ERIC). Findings - Classification schemes and thesauri were found to be helpful in creating the structure and categories related to the subject facet of the taxonomy, but organizational community sources had to be consulted and several methods had to be employed. The organizational activities and stakeholders' needs had to be identified to determine the objectives, facets, and the subject coverage of the taxonomy. Main categories were determined by identifying the stakeholders' interests and consulting organizational community sources and domain taxonomies. Category terms were selected from terminologies of classification schemes, domain taxonomies, and thesauri against the stakeholders' interests. Hierarchical structures of the main categories were constructed in line with the stakeholders' perspectives and the navigational role taking advantage of structures/term relationships from classification schemes and thesauri. Categories were determined in line with the concepts and the hierarchical levels. Format of categories were uniformed according to a commonly used standard. The consistency principle was employed to make the taxonomy structure and categories neater. Validation of the draft taxonomy through consultations with the stakeholders further refined the taxonomy. Originality/value - No similar study could be traced in the literature. The steps and methods used in the taxonomy development, and the information studies taxonomy itself, will be helpful for library and information schools and other similar organizations in their effort to develop taxonomies for organizing content and aiding navigation on organizational sites.
- Date
- 7.11.2008 15:22:04
- Theme
- Information Resources Management
-
Kashyap, M.M.: Likeness between Ranganathan's postulations based approach to knowledge classification and entity relationship data modelling approach (2003)
0.03
0.028175801 = product of:
0.0845274 = sum of:
0.011192262 = weight(_text_:information in 2045) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011192262 = score(doc=2045,freq=4.0), product of:
0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2045, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2045)
0.023498412 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2045) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023498412 = score(doc=2045,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2045, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2045)
0.049836725 = weight(_text_:techniques in 2045) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049836725 = score(doc=2045,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17065717 = queryWeight, product of:
4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.2920283 = fieldWeight in 2045, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2045)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- This paper describes the Postulations Based Approach to Facet Classification as articulated by S. R. Ranganathan for knowledge classification and for the design of a facet scheme of library classification, and the Entity-Relationship Data Modelling and Analysis Approach set by Peter Pin-Sen Chen; both further modified by other experts. Efforts have been made to show the parallelism between the two approaches. It points out that, both the theoretical approaches are concerned with the organisation of knowledge or information, and apply almost similar theoretical principles, concepts, and techniques for the design and development of a framework for the organisation of knowledge, information, or data, in their respective domains. It states that both the approaches are complementary and supplementary to each other. The paper also argues that Ranganathan's postulations based approach or analytico-synthetic approach to knowledge classification can be applied for developing efficient data retrieval systems in addition to the data analysis and modelling domain.
-
Beghtol, C.: Classification theory (2010)
0.03
0.025013885 = product of:
0.11256248 = sum of:
0.011192262 = weight(_text_:information in 3761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011192262 = score(doc=3761,freq=4.0), product of:
0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 3761, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3761)
0.101370215 = product of:
0.20274043 = sum of:
0.20274043 = weight(_text_:theories in 3761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.20274043 = score(doc=3761,freq=14.0), product of:
0.21161452 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.95806485 = fieldWeight in 3761, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3761)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Abstract
- In the library and information sciences, classification theories are used primarily for knowledge organization, either in a manual or in a machine environment. In this context, classification theories have usually been developed initially as a support for specific knowledge organization classification systems, although the theories and the systems have influenced and re-influenced each other in particular ways throughout their lives. This entry discusses theories for knowledge organization classifications using examples from a number of classification systems, but no one system is discussed at length. Instead, the entry is organized into sections that deal first with classificatory issues in general and then with theories of content, theories of structure, and theories of notation for knowledge organization classifications.
- Source
- Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates
-
Szostak, R.: Classification, interdisciplinarity, and the study of science (2008)
0.02
0.024687594 = product of:
0.07406278 = sum of:
0.009326885 = weight(_text_:information in 1893) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009326885 = score(doc=1893,freq=4.0), product of:
0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 1893, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1893)
0.01958201 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1893) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.01958201 = score(doc=1893,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 1893, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1893)
0.045153882 = product of:
0.090307765 = sum of:
0.090307765 = weight(_text_:theories in 1893) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.090307765 = score(doc=1893,freq=4.0), product of:
0.21161452 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.426756 = fieldWeight in 1893, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1893)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- Purpose - This paper aims to respond to the 2005 paper by Hjørland and Nissen Pedersen by suggesting that an exhaustive and universal classification of the phenomena that scholars study, and the methods and theories they apply, is feasible. It seeks to argue that such a classification is critical for interdisciplinary scholarship. Design/methodology/approach - The paper presents a literature-based conceptual analysis, taking Hjørland and Nissen Pedersen as its starting point. Hjørland and Nissen Pedersen had identified several difficulties that would be encountered in developing such a classification; the paper suggests how each of these can be overcome. It also urges a deductive approach as complementary to the inductive approach recommended by Hjørland and Nissen Pedersen. Findings - The paper finds that an exhaustive and universal classification of scholarly documents in terms of (at least) the phenomena that scholars study, and the theories and methods they apply, appears to be both possible and desirable. Practical implications - The paper suggests how such a project can be begun. In particular it stresses the importance of classifying documents in terms of causal links between phenomena. Originality/value - The paper links the information science, interdisciplinary, and study of science literatures, and suggests that the types of classification outlined above would be of great value to scientists/scholars, and that they are possible.
- Content
- Bezugnahme auf: Hjoerland, B., K.N. Pedersen: A substantive theory of classification for information retrieval. In: Journal of documentation. 61(2005) no.5, S.582-597. - Vgl. auch: Hjoerland, R.: Core classification theory: : a reply to Szostak. In: Journal of documentation. 64(2008) no.3, S.333 - 342.
-
Kochar, R.S.: Library classification systems (1998)
0.02
0.022989947 = product of:
0.10345476 = sum of:
0.094221614 = weight(_text_:line in 931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.094221614 = score(doc=931,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21724595 = queryWeight, product of:
5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.4337094 = fieldWeight in 931, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=931)
0.009233146 = weight(_text_:information in 931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009233146 = score(doc=931,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 931, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=931)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Abstract
- Library classification traces the origins of the subject and leads an to the latest developments in it. This user-friendly text explains concepts through analogies, diagrams, and tables. The fundamental but important topics an terminology of classification has been uniquely explained. The book deals with the recent trends in the use of computers in cataloguing including on-line systems, artificial intelligence systems etc. With its up-to-date and comprehensive coverage the book will serve as a degree students of Library and Information Science and also prove to be invaluable reference material to professionals and researchers.
-
Frické, M.: Logic and the organization of information (2012)
0.02
0.022859931 = product of:
0.06857979 = sum of:
0.020123173 = weight(_text_:information in 1782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020123173 = score(doc=1782,freq=38.0), product of:
0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.29590017 = fieldWeight in 1782, product of:
6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
38.0 = termFreq=38.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1782)
0.0193852 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0193852 = score(doc=1782,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.16542503 = fieldWeight in 1782, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1782)
0.029071424 = weight(_text_:techniques in 1782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029071424 = score(doc=1782,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17065717 = queryWeight, product of:
4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.17034985 = fieldWeight in 1782, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1782)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- Logic and the Organization of Information closely examines the historical and contemporary methodologies used to catalogue information objects-books, ebooks, journals, articles, web pages, images, emails, podcasts and more-in the digital era. This book provides an in-depth technical background for digital librarianship, and covers a broad range of theoretical and practical topics including: classification theory, topic annotation, automatic clustering, generalized synonymy and concept indexing, distributed libraries, semantic web ontologies and Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS). It also analyzes the challenges facing today's information architects, and outlines a series of techniques for overcoming them. Logic and the Organization of Information is intended for practitioners and professionals working at a design level as a reference book for digital librarianship. Advanced-level students, researchers and academics studying information science, library science, digital libraries and computer science will also find this book invaluable.
- Footnote
- Rez. in: J. Doc. 70(2014) no.4: "Books on the organization of information and knowledge, aimed at a library/information audience, tend to fall into two clear categories. Most are practical and pragmatic, explaining the "how" as much or more than the "why". Some are theoretical, in part or in whole, showing how the practice of classification, indexing, resource description and the like relates to philosophy, logic, and other foundational bases; the books by Langridge (1992) and by Svenonious (2000) are well-known examples this latter kind. To this category certainly belongs a recent book by Martin Frické (2012). The author takes the reader for an extended tour through a variety of aspects of information organization, including classification and taxonomy, alphabetical vocabularies and indexing, cataloguing and FRBR, and aspects of the semantic web. The emphasis throughout is on showing how practice is, or should be, underpinned by formal structures; there is a particular emphasis on first order predicate calculus. The advantages of a greater, and more explicit, use of symbolic logic is a recurring theme of the book. There is a particularly commendable historical dimension, often omitted in texts on this subject. It cannot be said that this book is entirely an easy read, although it is well written with a helpful index, and its arguments are generally well supported by clear and relevant examples. It is thorough and detailed, but thereby seems better geared to the needs of advanced students and researchers than to the practitioners who are suggested as a main market. For graduate students in library/information science and related disciplines, in particular, this will be a valuable resource. I would place it alongside Svenonious' book as the best insight into the theoretical "why" of information organization. It has evoked a good deal of interest, including a set of essay commentaries in Journal of Information Science (Gilchrist et al., 2013). Introducing these, Alan Gilchrist rightly says that Frické deserves a salute for making explicit the fundamental relationship between the ancient discipline of logic and modern information organization. If information science is to continue to develop, and make a contribution to the organization of the information environments of the future, then this book sets the groundwork for the kind of studies which will be needed." (D. Bawden)
- LCSH
- Information Systems
Information storage and retrieval systems
- Subject
- Information Systems
Information storage and retrieval systems
-
Classification research for knowledge representation and organization : Proc. of the 5th Int. Study Conf. on Classification Research, Toronto, Canada, 24.-28.6.1991 (1992)
0.02
0.020794217 = product of:
0.06238265 = sum of:
0.011192262 = weight(_text_:information in 2072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011192262 = score(doc=2072,freq=16.0), product of:
0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2072, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2072)
0.026272025 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.026272025 = score(doc=2072,freq=10.0), product of:
0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.22419426 = fieldWeight in 2072, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2072)
0.024918362 = weight(_text_:techniques in 2072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.024918362 = score(doc=2072,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17065717 = queryWeight, product of:
4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.14601415 = fieldWeight in 2072, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2072)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- This volume deals with both theoretical and empirical research in classification and encompasses universal classification systems, special classification systems, thesauri and the place of classification in a broad spectrum of document and information systems. Papers fall into one or three major areas as follows: 1) general principles and policies 2) structure and logic in classification; and empirical investigation; classification in the design of various types of document/information systems. The papers originate from the ISCCR '91 conference and have been selected according to the following criteria: relevance to the conference theme; importance of the topic in the representation and organization of knowledge; quality; and originality in terms of potential contribution to research and new knowledge.
- Content
- Enthält die Beiträge: SVENONIUS, E.: Classification: prospects, problems, and possibilities; BEALL, J.: Editing the Dewey Decimal Classification online: the evolution of the DDC database; BEGHTOL, C.: Toward a theory of fiction analysis for information storage and retrieval; CRAVEN, T.C.: Concept relation structures and their graphic display; FUGMANN, R.: Illusory goals in information science research; GILCHRIST, A.: UDC: the 1990's and beyond; GREEN, R.: The expression of syntagmatic relationships in indexing: are frame-based index languages the answer?; HUMPHREY, S.M.: Use and management of classification systems for knowledge-based indexing; MIKSA, F.L.: The concept of the universe of knowledge and the purpose of LIS classification; SCOTT, M. u. A.F. FONSECA: Methodology for functional appraisal of records and creation of a functional thesaurus; ALBRECHTSEN, H.: PRESS: a thesaurus-based information system for software reuse; AMAESHI, B.: A preliminary AAT compatible African art thesaurus; CHATTERJEE, A.: Structures of Indian classification systems of the pre-Ranganathan era and their impact on the Colon Classification; COCHRANE, P.A.: Indexing and searching thesauri, the Janus or Proteus of information retrieval; CRAVEN, T.C.: A general versus a special algorithm in the graphic display of thesauri; DAHLBERG, I.: The basis of a new universal classification system seen from a philosophy of science point of view: DRABENSTOTT, K.M., RIESTER, L.C. u. B.A.DEDE: Shelflisting using expert systems; FIDEL, R.: Thesaurus requirements for an intermediary expert system; GREEN, R.: Insights into classification from the cognitive sciences: ramifications for index languages; GROLIER, E. de: Towards a syndetic information retrieval system; GUENTHER, R.: The USMARC format for classification data: development and implementation; HOWARTH, L.C.: Factors influencing policies for the adoption and integration of revisions to classification schedules; HUDON, M.: Term definitions in subject thesauri: the Canadian literacy thesaurus experience; HUSAIN, S.: Notational techniques for the accomodation of subjects in Colon Classification 7th edition: theoretical possibility vis-à-vis practical need; KWASNIK, B.H. u. C. JORGERSEN: The exploration by means of repertory grids of semantic differences among names of official documents; MICCO, M.: Suggestions for automating the Library of Congress Classification schedules; PERREAULT, J.M.: An essay on the prehistory of general categories (II): G.W. Leibniz, Conrad Gesner; REES-POTTER, L.K.: How well do thesauri serve the social sciences?; REVIE, C.W. u. G. SMART: The construction and the use of faceted classification schema in technical domains; ROCKMORE, M.: Structuring a flexible faceted thsaurus record for corporate information retrieval; ROULIN, C.: Sub-thesauri as part of a metathesaurus; SMITH, L.C.: UNISIST revisited: compatibility in the context of collaboratories; STILES, W.G.: Notes concerning the use chain indexing as a possible means of simulating the inductive leap within artificial intelligence; SVENONIUS, E., LIU, S. u. B. SUBRAHMANYAM: Automation in chain indexing; TURNER, J.: Structure in data in the Stockshot database at the National Film Board of Canada; VIZINE-GOETZ, D.: The Dewey Decimal Classification as an online classification tool; WILLIAMSON, N.J.: Restructuring UDC: problems and possibilies; WILSON, A.: The hierarchy of belief: ideological tendentiousness in universal classification; WILSON, B.F.: An evaluation of the systematic botany schedule of the Universal Decimal Classification (English full edition, 1979); ZENG, L.: Research and development of classification and thesauri in China; CONFERENCE SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
- Theme
- Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval
-
Green, R.: Facet analysis and semantic frames (2017)
0.02
0.02014706 = product of:
0.090661764 = sum of:
0.058733147 = weight(_text_:techniques in 3849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.058733147 = score(doc=3849,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17065717 = queryWeight, product of:
4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.34415868 = fieldWeight in 3849, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.405231 = idf(docFreq=1467, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3849)
0.031928614 = product of:
0.06385723 = sum of:
0.06385723 = weight(_text_:theories in 3849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06385723 = score(doc=3849,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21161452 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.30176204 = fieldWeight in 3849, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3849)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Abstract
- Various fields, each with its own theories, techniques, and tools, are concerned with identifying and representing the conceptual structure of specific knowledge domains. This paper compares facet analysis, an analytic technique coming out of knowledge organization (especially as undertaken by members of the Classification Research Group (CRG)), with semantic frame analysis, an analytic technique coming out of lexical semantics (especially as undertaken by the developers of Frame-Net) The investigation addresses three questions: 1) how do CRG-style facet analysis and semantic frame analysis characterize the conceptual structures that they identify?; 2) how similar are the techniques they use?; and, 3) how similar are the conceptual structures they produce? Facet analysis is concerned with the logical categories underlying the terminology of an entire field, while semantic frame analysis is concerned with the participant-and-prop structure manifest in sentences about a type of situation or event. When their scope of application is similar, as, for example, in the areas of the performing arts or education, the resulting facets and semantic frame elements often bear striking resemblance, without being the same; facets are more often expressed as semantic types, while frame elements are more often expressed as roles.
-
Shera, J.H.: Pattern, structure, and conceptualization in classification for information retrieval (1957)
0.02
0.019744016 = product of:
0.08884807 = sum of:
0.022384524 = weight(_text_:information in 1287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022384524 = score(doc=1287,freq=4.0), product of:
0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.3291521 = fieldWeight in 1287, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1287)
0.066463545 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.066463545 = score(doc=1287,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.5671716 = fieldWeight in 1287, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1287)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Source
- Proceedings of the International Study Conference on Classification for Information Retrieval, held at Beatrice Webb House, Dorking, England, 13.-17.5.1957
-
Beghtol, C.: Naïve classification systems and the global information society (2004)
0.02
0.018001692 = product of:
0.054005075 = sum of:
0.013190207 = weight(_text_:information in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013190207 = score(doc=3483,freq=8.0), product of:
0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 3483, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3483)
0.027693143 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027693143 = score(doc=3483,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 3483, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3483)
0.013121725 = product of:
0.02624345 = sum of:
0.02624345 = weight(_text_:22 in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02624345 = score(doc=3483,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13565971 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3483, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3483)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- Classification is an activity that transcends time and space and that bridges the divisions between different languages and cultures, including the divisions between academic disciplines. Classificatory activity, however, serves different purposes in different situations. Classifications for infonnation retrieval can be called "professional" classifications and classifications in other fields can be called "naïve" classifications because they are developed by people who have no particular interest in classificatory issues. The general purpose of naïve classification systems is to discover new knowledge. In contrast, the general purpose of information retrieval classifications is to classify pre-existing knowledge. Different classificatory purposes may thus inform systems that are intended to span the cultural specifics of the globalized information society. This paper builds an previous research into the purposes and characteristics of naïve classifications. It describes some of the relationships between the purpose and context of a naive classification, the units of analysis used in it, and the theory that the context and the units of analysis imply.
- Pages
- S.19-22
- Source
- Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine
-
Jacob, E.K.: Proposal for a classification of classifications built on Beghtol's distinction between "Naïve Classification" and "Professional Classification" (2010)
0.02
0.017650716 = product of:
0.052952148 = sum of:
0.013707667 = weight(_text_:information in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.013707667 = score(doc=2945,freq=6.0), product of:
0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 2945, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2945)
0.023498412 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023498412 = score(doc=2945,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2945, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2945)
0.01574607 = product of:
0.03149214 = sum of:
0.03149214 = weight(_text_:22 in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03149214 = score(doc=2945,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13565971 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2945, 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=2945)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- Argues that Beghtol's (2003) use of the terms "naive classification" and "professional classification" is valid because they are nominal definitions and that the distinction between these two types of classification points up the need for researchers in knowledge organization to broaden their scope beyond traditional classification systems intended for information retrieval. Argues that work by Beghtol (2003), Kwasnik (1999) and Bailey (1994) offer direction for the development of a classification of classifications based on the pragmatic dimensions of extant classification systems. Bezugnahme auf: Beghtol, C.: Naïve classification systems and the global information society. In: Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine. Würzburg: Ergon Verlag 2004. S.19-22. (Advances in knowledge organization; vol.9)
-
Classification Research Group: ¬The need for a faceted classification as the basis of all methods of information retrieval (1985)
0.02
0.01685657 = product of:
0.050569706 = sum of:
0.007914125 = weight(_text_:information in 3640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007914125 = score(doc=3640,freq=8.0), product of:
0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3640, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3640)
0.023498412 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023498412 = score(doc=3640,freq=8.0), product of:
0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 3640, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3640)
0.01915717 = product of:
0.03831434 = sum of:
0.03831434 = weight(_text_:theories in 3640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03831434 = score(doc=3640,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21161452 = queryWeight, product of:
5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.18105723 = fieldWeight in 3640, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.4624767 = idf(docFreq=509, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3640)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- This classic paper presents the reasoning behind the research undertaken by the Classification Research Group in London, beginning in 1952 and producing, by 1955, the direction in which the Group's efforts were to go in the next thirty years. The Group's original purpose was to review the basic principles of indexing and classification without committing itself to any existing system. It began by uncovering - among existing systems such as indexes, classifications, automatic selectors, and other information retrieval systems - the steps in the process by means of which a search was performed. The Group went over this very carefully, identifying parts of the process each step of the way. At the time this work was performed systems such as UNITERMS, which did not survive, and other alphabetical coordinated indexes, mainly experimental, were a dime a dozen. Classification to most librarians meant Dewey and the Library of Congress systems, both of which have very serious shortcomings from an intellectual point of view. The Group finally came to the conclusion that a classification of knowledge was necessary for constructing any successful retrieval system. The question then became one of deciding which kind of classification system. The members identified ten unsatisfactory features of existing systems. In fact, they could not find any general class schedule that either was satisfactory or could be made satisfactory. Obviously then, a new system had to be made. The question became one of how to do this. Existing theories did not conform to the theory of logical division; dividing and subdividing an the basis of a single characteristic was not followed. Thus logical division, which is a "top down" method of analysis, was rejected. Generic relationships would have to be made by some other methodology. A "bottom-up" or inductive, as opposed to deductive, method was a possibility. The Group actually decided to use a system in which a given genus could be subdivided in more than one way, thus "yielding a homogeneous group of collateral species."
The technique chosen was S. R. Ranganathan's facet analysis (q.v.). This method works from the bottom up: a term is categorized according to its parent class, as a kind, state, property, action, operation upon something, result of an Operation, agent, and so on. These modes of definition represent characteristics of division. Following the publication of this paper, the group worked for over ten years developing systems following this general pattern with various changes and experimental arrangements. Ranganathan's Colon Classification was the original of this type of method, but the Group rejected his contention that there are only five fundamental categories to be found in the knowledge base. They did, in fact, end up with varying numbers of categories in the experimental systems which they ultimately were to make. Notation was also recognized as a problem, being complex, illogical, lengthy, obscure and hard to understand. The Group tried to develop a rationale for notation, both as an ordering and as a finding device. To describe and represent a class, a notation could be long, but as a finding device, brevity would be preferable. The Group was to experiment with this aspect of classification and produce a number of interesting results. The Classification Research Group began meeting informally to discuss classification matters in 1952 and continues to meet, usually in London, to the present day. Most of the British authors whose work is presented in these pages have been members for most of the Group's life and continue in it. The Group maintains the basic position outlined in this paper to the present day. Its experimental approach has resulted in much more information about the nature and functions of classification systems. The ideal system has yet to be found. Classification research is still a promising area. The future calls for more experimentation based an reasoned approaches, following the example set by the Classification Research Group.
- Footnote
- Original in: Proceedings of the International Study Conference on Classification for Information Retrieval held at Beatrice Webb House, Dorking, England, 13th-17th May 1957. London: Aslib 1957, Appendix 2, S.137-147.
-
Ranganathan, S.R.: Library classification as a discipline (1957)
0.02
0.016287982 = product of:
0.07329592 = sum of:
0.018466292 = weight(_text_:information in 564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018466292 = score(doc=564,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 564, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=564)
0.054829627 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054829627 = score(doc=564,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 564, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=564)
0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
- Source
- Proceedings of the International Study Conference on Classification for Information Retrieval, held at Beatrice Webb House,Dorking, England, 13.-17.5.1957
-
Slavic, A.: On the nature and typology of documentary classifications and their use in a networked environment (2007)
0.02
0.015719537 = product of:
0.047158606 = sum of:
0.007914125 = weight(_text_:information in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007914125 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06800663 = queryWeight, product of:
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 780, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=780)
0.023498412 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023498412 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1171842 = queryWeight, product of:
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 780, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=780)
0.01574607 = product of:
0.03149214 = sum of:
0.03149214 = weight(_text_:22 in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03149214 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13565971 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.038739666 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 780, 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=780)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
- Abstract
- Networked orientated standards for vocabulary publishing and exchange and proposals for terminological services and terminology registries will improve sharing and use of all knowledge organization systems in the networked information environment. This means that documentary classifications may also become more applicable for use outside their original domain of application. The paper summarises some characteristics common to documentary classifications and explains some terminological, functional and implementation aspects. The original purpose behind each classification scheme determines the functions that the vocabulary is designed to facilitate. These functions influence the structure, semantics and syntax, scheme coverage and format in which classification data are published and made available. The author suggests that attention should be paid to the differences between documentary classifications as these may determine their suitability for a certain purpose and may impose different requirements with respect to their use online. As we speak, many classifications are being created for knowledge organization and it may be important to promote expertise from the bibliographic domain with respect to building and using classification systems.
- Date
- 22.12.2007 17:22:31
- Theme
- Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval
