-
Jacob, E.K.: Proposal for a classification of classifications built on Beghtol's distinction between "Naïve Classification" and "Professional Classification" (2010)
0.01
0.006566672 = product of:
0.06566672 = sum of:
0.06566672 = product of:
0.09850007 = sum of:
0.07356274 = weight(_text_:2010 in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07356274 = score(doc=2945,freq=5.0), product of:
0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.03067635 = queryNorm
0.5013491 = fieldWeight in 2945, product of:
2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
5.0 = termFreq=5.0
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2945)
0.02493733 = weight(_text_:22 in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02493733 = score(doc=2945,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03067635 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.1 = coord(1/10)
- 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)
- Source
- Knowledge organization. 37(2010) no.2, S.111-120
- Year
- 2010
-
Putkey, T.: Using SKOS to express faceted classification on the Semantic Web (2011)
0.00
0.004370512 = product of:
0.02185256 = sum of:
0.011513635 = product of:
0.034540903 = sum of:
0.034540903 = weight(_text_:problem in 311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.034540903 = score(doc=311,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1302053 = queryWeight, product of:
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.03067635 = queryNorm
0.2652803 = fieldWeight in 311, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=311)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.010338926 = product of:
0.031016776 = sum of:
0.031016776 = weight(_text_:2010 in 311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031016776 = score(doc=311,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.03067635 = queryNorm
0.21138735 = fieldWeight in 311, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=311)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.2 = coord(2/10)
- Abstract
- This paper looks at Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) to investigate how a faceted classification can be expressed in RDF and shared on the Semantic Web. Statement of the Problem Faceted classification outlines facets as well as subfacets and facet values. Hierarchical relationships and associative relationships are established in a faceted classification. RDF is used to describe how a specific URI has a relationship to a facet value. Not only does RDF decompose "information into pieces," but by incorporating facet values RDF also given the URI the hierarchical and associative relationships expressed in the faceted classification. Combining faceted classification and RDF creates more knowledge than if the two stood alone. An application understands the subjectpredicate-object relationship in RDF and can display hierarchical and associative relationships based on the object (facet) value. This paper continues to investigate if the above idea is indeed useful, used, and applicable. If so, how can a faceted classification be expressed in RDF? What would this expression look like? Literature Review This paper used the same articles as the paper A Survey of Faceted Classification: History, Uses, Drawbacks and the Semantic Web (Putkey, 2010). In that paper, appropriate resources were discovered by searching in various databases for "faceted classification" and "faceted search," either in the descriptor or title fields. Citations were also followed to find more articles as well as searching the Internet for the same terms. To retrieve the documents about RDF, searches combined "faceted classification" and "RDF, " looking for these words in either the descriptor or title.
Methodology Based on information from research papers, more research was done on SKOS and examples of SKOS and shared faceted classifications in the Semantic Web and about SKOS and how to express SKOS in RDF/XML. Once confident with these ideas, the author used a faceted taxonomy created in a Vocabulary Design class and encoded it using SKOS. Instead of writing RDF in a program such as Notepad, a thesaurus tool was used to create the taxonomy according to SKOS standards and then export the thesaurus in RDF/XML format. These processes and tools are then analyzed. Results The initial statement of the problem was simply an extension of the survey paper done earlier in this class. To continue on with the research, more research was done into SKOS - a standard for expressing thesauri, taxonomies and faceted classifications so they can be shared on the semantic web.
-
Beghtol, C.: Naïve classification systems and the global information society (2004)
0.00
0.0039701387 = product of:
0.039701387 = sum of:
0.039701387 = product of:
0.05955208 = sum of:
0.03877097 = weight(_text_:2010 in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03877097 = score(doc=3483,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.03067635 = queryNorm
0.2642342 = fieldWeight in 3483, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3483)
0.02078111 = weight(_text_:22 in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02078111 = score(doc=3483,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03067635 = 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)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.1 = coord(1/10)
- Footnote
- Vgl.: Jacob, E.K.: Proposal for a classification of classifications built on Beghtol's distinction between "Naïve Classification" and "Professional Classification". In: Knowledge organization. 37(2010) no.2, S.111-120.
- Pages
- S.19-22
-
Burkart, M.: Dokumentationssprachen (1990)
0.00
0.0033727388 = product of:
0.03372739 = sum of:
0.03372739 = product of:
0.10118216 = sum of:
0.10118216 = weight(_text_:1990 in 4301) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.10118216 = score(doc=4301,freq=3.0), product of:
0.13825724 = queryWeight, product of:
4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
0.03067635 = queryNorm
0.7318399 = fieldWeight in 4301, product of:
1.7320508 = tf(freq=3.0), with freq of:
3.0 = termFreq=3.0
4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4301)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.1 = coord(1/10)
- Year
- 1990
-
Szostak, R.: Universal and domain-specific classifications from an interdisciplinary perspective (2010)
0.00
0.0032694556 = product of:
0.032694556 = sum of:
0.032694556 = product of:
0.09808366 = sum of:
0.09808366 = weight(_text_:2010 in 3516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09808366 = score(doc=3516,freq=5.0), product of:
0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.03067635 = queryNorm
0.6684655 = fieldWeight in 3516, product of:
2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
5.0 = termFreq=5.0
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3516)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.1 = coord(1/10)
- Source
- Paradigms and conceptual systems in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Eleventh International ISKO Conference, 23-26 February 2010 Rome, Italy. Edited by Claudio Gnoli and Fulvio Mazzocchi
- Year
- 2010
-
Qin, J.: Evolving paradigms of knowledge representation and organization : a comparative study of classification, XML/DTD and ontology (2003)
0.00
0.0029442124 = product of:
0.029442124 = sum of:
0.029442124 = product of:
0.044163186 = sum of:
0.027538298 = weight(_text_:1990 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027538298 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13825724 = queryWeight, product of:
4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
0.03067635 = queryNorm
0.1991816 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
0.016624888 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.016624888 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03067635 = queryNorm
0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.1 = coord(1/10)
- Abstract
- The different points of views an knowledge representation and organization from various research communities reflect underlying philosophies and paradigms in these communities. This paper reviews differences and relations in knowledge representation and organization and generalizes four paradigms-integrative and disintegrative pragmatism and integrative and disintegrative epistemologism. Examples such as classification, XML schemas, and ontologies are compared based an how they specify concepts, build data models, and encode knowledge organization structures. 1. Introduction Knowledge representation (KR) is a term that several research communities use to refer to somewhat different aspects of the same research area. The artificial intelligence (AI) community considers KR as simply "something to do with writing down, in some language or communications medium, descriptions or pictures that correspond in some salient way to the world or a state of the world" (Duce & Ringland, 1988, p. 3). It emphasizes the ways in which knowledge can be encoded in a computer program (Bench-Capon, 1990). For the library and information science (LIS) community, KR is literally the synonym of knowledge organization, i.e., KR is referred to as the process of organizing knowledge into classifications, thesauri, or subject heading lists. KR has another meaning in LIS: it "encompasses every type and method of indexing, abstracting, cataloguing, classification, records management, bibliography and the creation of textual or bibliographic databases for information retrieval" (Anderson, 1996, p. 336). Adding the social dimension to knowledge organization, Hjoerland (1997) states that knowledge is a part of human activities and tied to the division of labor in society, which should be the primary organization of knowledge. Knowledge organization in LIS is secondary or derived, because knowledge is organized in learned institutions and publications. These different points of views an KR suggest that an essential difference in the understanding of KR between both AI and LIS lies in the source of representationwhether KR targets human activities or derivatives (knowledge produced) from human activities. This difference also decides their difference in purpose-in AI KR is mainly computer-application oriented or pragmatic and the result of representation is used to support decisions an human activities, while in LIS KR is conceptually oriented or abstract and the result of representation is used for access to derivatives from human activities.
- Date
- 12. 9.2004 17:22:35
-
Cheti, A.: ¬Le categorie nell'indicizzazione (1990)
0.00
0.0029027916 = product of:
0.029027916 = sum of:
0.029027916 = product of:
0.08708375 = sum of:
0.08708375 = weight(_text_:1990 in 3527) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08708375 = score(doc=3527,freq=5.0), product of:
0.13825724 = queryWeight, product of:
4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
0.03067635 = queryNorm
0.62986755 = fieldWeight in 3527, product of:
2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
5.0 = termFreq=5.0
4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3527)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.1 = coord(1/10)
- Source
- Biblioteche oggi. 8(1990) no.1, S.29-49
- Year
- 1990
-
Fripp, D.: Using linked data to classify web documents (2010)
0.00
0.0028607734 = product of:
0.028607734 = sum of:
0.028607734 = product of:
0.0858232 = sum of:
0.0858232 = weight(_text_:2010 in 4172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0858232 = score(doc=4172,freq=5.0), product of:
0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.03067635 = queryNorm
0.5849073 = fieldWeight in 4172, product of:
2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
5.0 = termFreq=5.0
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4172)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.1 = coord(1/10)
- Source
- Aslib proceedings. 62(2010) no.6, S.585 - 595
- Year
- 2010
-
Zeng, M.L.; Panzer, M.; Salaba, A.: Expressing classification schemes with OWL 2 Web Ontology Language : exploring issues and opportunities based on experiments using OWL 2 for three classification schemes
0.00
0.0020677852 = product of:
0.020677852 = sum of:
0.020677852 = product of:
0.062033553 = sum of:
0.062033553 = weight(_text_:2010 in 3130) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.062033553 = score(doc=3130,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.03067635 = queryNorm
0.4227747 = fieldWeight in 3130, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3130)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.1 = coord(1/10)
- Source
- Paradigms and conceptual systems in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Eleventh International ISKO conference, Rome, 23-26 February 2010, ed. Claudio Gnoli, Indeks, Frankfurt M
-
Beghtol, C.: Classification theory (2010)
0.00
0.001899382 = product of:
0.01899382 = sum of:
0.01899382 = product of:
0.056981456 = sum of:
0.056981456 = weight(_text_:2010 in 3761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.056981456 = score(doc=3761,freq=3.0), product of:
0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.03067635 = queryNorm
0.38834336 = fieldWeight in 3761, product of:
1.7320508 = tf(freq=3.0), with freq of:
3.0 = termFreq=3.0
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3761)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.1 = coord(1/10)
- Year
- 2010
-
Green, R.; Panzer, M.: ¬The ontological character of classes in the Dewey Decimal Classification
0.00
0.001809312 = product of:
0.01809312 = sum of:
0.01809312 = product of:
0.054279357 = sum of:
0.054279357 = weight(_text_:2010 in 3530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.054279357 = score(doc=3530,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.03067635 = queryNorm
0.36992785 = fieldWeight in 3530, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3530)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.1 = coord(1/10)
- Source
- Paradigms and conceptual systems in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Eleventh International ISKO conference, Rome, 23-26 February 2010, ed. Claudio Gnoli, Indeks, Frankfurt M
-
Maniez, J.: ¬Des classifications aux thesaurus : du bon usage des facettes (1999)
0.00
0.0016624887 = product of:
0.016624887 = sum of:
0.016624887 = product of:
0.04987466 = sum of:
0.04987466 = weight(_text_:22 in 6404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04987466 = score(doc=6404,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03067635 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6404, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6404)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.1 = coord(1/10)
- Date
- 1. 8.1996 22:01:00
-
Maniez, J.: ¬Du bon usage des facettes : des classifications aux thésaurus (1999)
0.00
0.0016624887 = product of:
0.016624887 = sum of:
0.016624887 = product of:
0.04987466 = sum of:
0.04987466 = weight(_text_:22 in 3773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04987466 = score(doc=3773,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03067635 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3773, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3773)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.1 = coord(1/10)
- Date
- 1. 8.1996 22:01:00
-
Foskett, D.J.: Systems theory and its relevance to documentary classification (2017)
0.00
0.0016624887 = product of:
0.016624887 = sum of:
0.016624887 = product of:
0.04987466 = sum of:
0.04987466 = weight(_text_:22 in 3176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04987466 = score(doc=3176,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.03067635 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3176, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3176)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.1 = coord(1/10)
- Date
- 6. 5.2017 18:46:22
-
Tkalac, S.; Mateljan, V.: Neke karakteristike notacijskih shema (1996)
0.00
0.0016282737 = product of:
0.016282737 = sum of:
0.016282737 = product of:
0.04884821 = sum of:
0.04884821 = weight(_text_:problem in 655) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04884821 = score(doc=655,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1302053 = queryWeight, product of:
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.03067635 = queryNorm
0.375163 = fieldWeight in 655, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=655)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.1 = coord(1/10)
- Abstract
- Presents a short review of fundamental knowledge representation methods: logical, graphical, structured and procedural notational schemes. Special attention is given to notational schemes' classifications and the characteristics on which classifications were done. Knowledge representation is one of the central problems in artificial intelligence, but a complete theory of it does not exist, and it remains a set of methods that are used, with more or less success, in attempts to solve a given problem. The characteristics of knowledge schemes play a significant role
-
Tennis, J.T.: ¬The strange case of eugenics : a subject's ontogeny in a long-lived classification scheme and the question of collocative integrity (2012)
0.00
0.0016282737 = product of:
0.016282737 = sum of:
0.016282737 = product of:
0.04884821 = sum of:
0.04884821 = weight(_text_:problem in 275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04884821 = score(doc=275,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1302053 = queryWeight, product of:
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.03067635 = queryNorm
0.375163 = fieldWeight in 275, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=275)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.1 = coord(1/10)
- Abstract
- This article introduces the problem of collocative integrity present in long-lived classification schemes that undergo several changes. A case study of the subject "eugenics" in the Dewey Decimal Classification is presented to illustrate this phenomenon. Eugenics is strange because of the kinds of changes it undergoes. The article closes with a discussion of subject ontogeny as the name for this phenomenon and describes implications for information searching and browsing.
-
Hillman, D.J.: Mathematical classification techniques for nonstatic document collections, with particular reference to the problem of relevance (1965)
0.00
0.0014247395 = product of:
0.014247394 = sum of:
0.014247394 = product of:
0.04274218 = sum of:
0.04274218 = weight(_text_:problem in 5516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04274218 = score(doc=5516,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1302053 = queryWeight, product of:
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.03067635 = queryNorm
0.3282676 = fieldWeight in 5516, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5516)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.1 = coord(1/10)
-
Star, S.L.: Grounded classification : grounded theory and faceted classification (1998)
0.00
0.0014247395 = product of:
0.014247394 = sum of:
0.014247394 = product of:
0.04274218 = sum of:
0.04274218 = weight(_text_:problem in 851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04274218 = score(doc=851,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1302053 = queryWeight, product of:
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.03067635 = queryNorm
0.3282676 = fieldWeight in 851, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=851)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.1 = coord(1/10)
- Content
- This article compares the qualitative method of grounded theory (GT) with Ranganathan's construction of faceted classifications (FC) in library and information science. Both struggle with a core problem-i.e., the representation of vernacular words and processes, empirically discovered, which will, although ethnographically faithful, be powerful beyond the single instance or case study. The article compares Glaser and Strauss's (1967) work with that of Ranganathan(1950).
-
Beghtol, C.: Semantic validity : concepts of warrants in bibliographic classification systems (1986)
0.00
0.0012923657 = product of:
0.012923657 = sum of:
0.012923657 = product of:
0.03877097 = sum of:
0.03877097 = weight(_text_:2010 in 3487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03877097 = score(doc=3487,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14672957 = queryWeight, product of:
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.03067635 = queryNorm
0.2642342 = fieldWeight in 3487, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3487)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.1 = coord(1/10)
- Footnote
- Vgl.: Kwasnik, B.H.: Semantic warrant: a pivotal concept for our field. In: Knowledge organization. 37(2010) no.2, S.106-110.
-
Garcia Marco, F.J.; Esteban Navarro, M.A.: On some contributions of the cognitive sciences and epistemology to a theory of classification (1993)
0.00
0.0012212053 = product of:
0.012212053 = sum of:
0.012212053 = product of:
0.03663616 = sum of:
0.03663616 = weight(_text_:problem in 5876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03663616 = score(doc=5876,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1302053 = queryWeight, product of:
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.03067635 = queryNorm
0.28137225 = fieldWeight in 5876, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5876)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.1 = coord(1/10)
- Abstract
- Intended is first of all a preliminary review of the implications that the new approaches to the theory of classification, mainly from cognitive psychology and epistemology may have for information work and research. As a secondary topic the scientific relations existing among information science, epistemology and the cognitive sciences are discussed. Classification is seen as a central activity in all daily and scientific activities, and, of course, of knowledge organization in information services. There is a mutual implication between classification and conceptualization, as the former moves in a natural way to the latter and the best result elaborated for classification is the concept. Research in concept theory is a need for a theory of classification. In this direction it is of outstanding importance to integrate the achievements of 'natural concept formation theory' (NCFT) as an alternative approach to conceptualization different from the traditional one of logicians and problem solving researchers. In conclusion both approaches are seen as being complementary: the NCFT approach being closer to the user and the logical one being more suitable for experts, including 'expert systems'
