Search (43 results, page 3 of 3)

  • × theme_ss:"Klassifikationstheorie: Elemente / Struktur"
  1. Classification research for knowledge representation and organization : Proc. of the 5th Int. Study Conf. on Classification Research, Toronto, Canada, 24.-28.6.1991 (1992) 0.00
    6.8845745E-4 = product of:
      0.0068845744 = sum of:
        0.0068845744 = product of:
          0.020653723 = sum of:
            0.020653723 = weight(_text_:1990 in 2072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.020653723 = score(doc=2072,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13825724 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03067635 = queryNorm
                0.1493862 = fieldWeight in 2072, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.506965 = idf(docFreq=1325, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2072)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.1 = coord(1/10)
    
    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
  2. Classification Research Group: ¬The need for a faceted classification as the basis of all methods of information retrieval (1985) 0.00
    6.1060267E-4 = product of:
      0.0061060265 = sum of:
        0.0061060265 = product of:
          0.01831808 = sum of:
            0.01831808 = weight(_text_:problem in 3640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.01831808 = score(doc=3640,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1302053 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03067635 = queryNorm
                0.14068612 = fieldWeight in 3640, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3640)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.1 = coord(1/10)
    
    Abstract
    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.
  3. 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) 0.00
    5.5416295E-4 = product of:
      0.0055416296 = sum of:
        0.0055416296 = product of:
          0.016624888 = sum of:
            0.016624888 = weight(_text_:22 in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.016624888 = score(doc=2346,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.10742335 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03067635 = 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)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.1 = coord(1/10)
    
    Date
    7.11.2008 15:22:04