Search (12 results, page 1 of 1)

0.07477404 = product of:
  0.19939744 = sum of:
    0.06538227 = weight(_text_:world in 3066) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06538227 = score(doc=3066,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15396032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.42466965 = fieldWeight in 3066, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3066)
    0.086880796 = weight(_text_:wide in 3066) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.086880796 = score(doc=3066,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17747644 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.48953426 = fieldWeight in 3066, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3066)
    0.047134366 = weight(_text_:web in 3066) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047134366 = score(doc=3066,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.36057037 = fieldWeight in 3066, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3066)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

0.029582 = product of:
  0.07888533 = sum of:
    0.016345568 = weight(_text_:world in 2467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016345568 = score(doc=2467,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15396032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.10616741 = fieldWeight in 2467, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2467)
    0.021720199 = weight(_text_:wide in 2467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021720199 = score(doc=2467,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17747644 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.122383565 = fieldWeight in 2467, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2467)
    0.04081956 = weight(_text_:web in 2467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04081956 = score(doc=2467,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 2467, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2467)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

This is a classified, annotated bibliography about how to design faceted classification systems and make them usable on the World Wide Web. It is the first of three works I will be doing. The second, based on the material here and elsewhere, will discuss how to actually make the faceted system and put it online. The third will be a report of how I did just that, what worked, what didn't, and what I learned. Almost every article or book listed here begins with an explanation of what a faceted classification system is, so I won't (but see Steckel in Background below if you don't already know). They all agree that faceted systems are very appropriate for the web. Even pre-web articles (such as Duncan's in Background, below) assert that hypertext and facets will go together well. Combined, it is possible to take a set of documents and classify them or apply subject headings to describe what they are about, then build a navigational structure so that any user, no matter how he or she approaches the material, no matter what his or her goals, can move and search in a way that makes sense to them, but still get to the same useful results as someone else following a different path to the same goal. There is no one way that everyone will always use when looking for information. The more flexible the organization of the information, the more accommodating it is. Facets are more flexible for hypertext browsing than any enumerative or hierarchical system.
Consider movie listings in newspapers. Most Canadian newspapers list movie showtimes in two large blocks, for the two major theatre chains. The listings are ordered by region (in large cities), then theatre, then movie, and finally by showtime. Anyone wondering where and when a particular movie is playing must scan the complete listings. Determining what movies are playing in the next half hour is very difficult. When movie listings went onto the web, most sites used a simple faceted organization, always with movie name and theatre, and perhaps with region or neighbourhood (thankfully, theatre chains were left out). They make it easy to pick a theatre and see what movies are playing there, or to pick a movie and see what theatres are showing it. To complete the system, the sites should allow users to browse by neighbourhood and showtime, and to order the results in any way they desired. Thus could people easily find answers to such questions as, "Where is the new James Bond movie playing?" "What's showing at the Roxy tonight?" "I'm going to be out in in Little Finland this afternoon with three hours to kill starting at 2 ... is anything interesting playing?" A hypertext, faceted classification system makes more useful information more easily available to the user. Reading the books and articles below in chronological order will show a certain progression: suggestions that faceting and hypertext might work well, confidence that facets would work well if only someone would make such a system, and finally the beginning of serious work on actually designing, building, and testing faceted web sites. There is a solid basis of how to make faceted classifications (see Vickery in Recommended), but their application online is just starting. Work on XFML (see Van Dijck's work in Recommended) the Exchangeable Faceted Metadata Language, will make this easier. If it follows previous patterns, parts of the Internet community will embrace the idea and make open source software available for others to reuse. It will be particularly beneficial if professionals in both information studies and computer science can work together to build working systems, standards, and code. Each can benefit from the other's expertise in what can be a very complicated and technical area. One particularly nice thing about this area of research is that people interested in combining facets and the web often have web sites where they post their writings.
This bibliography is not meant to be exhaustive, but unfortunately it is not as complete as I wanted. Some books and articles are not be included, but they may be used in my future work. (These include two books and one article by B.C. Vickery: Faceted Classification Schemes (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers, 1966), Classification and Indexing in Science, 3rd ed. (London: Butterworths, 1975), and "Knowledge Representation: A Brief Review" (Journal of Documentation 42 no. 3 (September 1986): 145-159; and A.C. Foskett's "The Future of Faceted Classification" in The Future of Classification, edited by Rita Marcella and Arthur Maltby (Aldershot, England: Gower, 2000): 69-80). Nevertheless, I hope this bibliography will be useful for those both new to or familiar with faceted hypertext systems. Some very basic resources are listed, as well as some very advanced ones. Some example web sites are mentioned, but there is no detailed technical discussion of any software. The user interface to any web site is extremely important, and this is briefly mentioned in two or three places (for example the discussion of lawforwa.org (see Example Web Sites)). The larger question of how to display information graphically and with hypertext is outside the scope of this bibliography. There are five sections: Recommended, Background, Not Relevant, Example Web Sites, and Mailing Lists. Background material is either introductory, advanced, or of peripheral interest, and can be read after the Recommended resources if the reader wants to know more. The Not Relevant category contains articles that may appear in bibliographies but are not relevant for my purposes.

0.025277987 = product of:
  0.10111195 = sum of:
    0.052128475 = weight(_text_:wide in 2471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052128475 = score(doc=2471,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17747644 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.29372054 = fieldWeight in 2471, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2471)
    0.048983473 = weight(_text_:web in 2471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048983473 = score(doc=2471,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.37471575 = fieldWeight in 2471, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2471)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

This is a short, but very thorough and very interesting, report on how the writers built a faceted classification for some legal information and used it to structure a web site with navigation and searching. There is a good summary of why facets work well and how they fit into bibliographic control in general. The last section is about their implementation of a web site for the Washington State Bar Association's Council for Legal Public Education. Their classification uses three facets: Purpose (the general aim of the document, e.g. Resources for K-12 Teachers), Topic (the subject of the document), and Type (the legal format of the document). See Example Web Sites, below, for a discussion of the site and a problem with its design.

Content

A very large PDF of the six-foot-wide illustrated poster from their poster session is available at http://depts.washington.edu/pettt/presentations/conf_2003/IASummit-Poster-Louie.pdf.

0.016037978 = product of:
  0.06415191 = sum of:
    0.045298167 = weight(_text_:world in 2) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045298167 = score(doc=2,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15396032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.29421976 = fieldWeight in 2, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2)
    0.018853746 = weight(_text_:web in 2) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018853746 = score(doc=2,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 2, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

In the present work we discuss opportunities, problems, tools and techniques encountered when interconnecting discipline-specific subject classifications, primarily organized as search devices in bibliographic databases, with general classifications originally devised for book shelving in public libraries. We first state the fundamental distinction between topical (or subject) classifications and object classifications. Then we trace the structural limitations that have constrained subject classifications since their library origins, and the devices that were used to overcome the gap with genuine knowledge representation. After recalling some general notions on structure, dynamics and interferences of subject classifications and of the objects they refer to, we sketch a synthetic overview on discipline-specific classifications in Mathematics, Computing and Physics, on one hand, and on general classifications on the other. In this setting we present The Scientific Classifications Page, which collects groups of Web pages produced by a pool of software tools for developing hypertextual presentations of single or paired subject classifications from sequential source files, as well as facilities for gathering information from KWIC lists of classification descriptions. Further we propose a concept-oriented methodology for interconnecting subject classifications, with the concrete support of a relational analysis of the whole Mathematics Subject Classification through its evolution since 1959. Finally, we recall a very basic method for interconnection provided by coreference in bibliographic records among index elements from different systems, and point out the advantages of establishing the conditions of a more widespread application of such a method. A part of these contents was presented under the title Mathematics Subject Classification and related Classifications in the Digital World at the Eighth International Conference Crimea 2001, "Libraries and Associations in the Transient World: New Technologies and New Forms of Cooperation", Sudak, Ukraine, June 9-17, 2001, in a special session on electronic libraries, electronic publishing and electronic information in science chaired by Bernd Wegner, Editor-in-Chief of Zentralblatt MATH.

0.0082485145 = product of:
  0.065988116 = sum of:
    0.065988116 = weight(_text_:web in 3061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.065988116 = score(doc=3061,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.50479853 = fieldWeight in 3061, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3061)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This document describes in brief how to express the content and structure of a classification scheme, and metadata about a classification scheme, in RDF using the SKOS vocabulary. RDF allows data to be linked to and/or merged with other RDF data by semantic web applications. The Semantic Web, which is based on the Resource Description Framework (RDF), provides a common framework that allows data to be shared and reused across application, enterprise, and community boundaries. Publishing classifications schemes in SKOS will unify the great many of existing classification efforts in the framework of the Semantic Web.

0.0058917957 = product of:
  0.047134366 = sum of:
    0.047134366 = weight(_text_:web in 6673) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047134366 = score(doc=6673,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.36057037 = fieldWeight in 6673, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=6673)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The specification for XFML, a markup language designed to handle faceted classifications. Browsing the site (http://www.xfml.org/) will reveal news about XFML and links to related software and web sites. XFML is not an officially recognized Internet standard, but is the de facto standard.

0.0049993545 = product of:
  0.039994836 = sum of:
    0.039994836 = weight(_text_:web in 4394) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.039994836 = score(doc=4394,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 4394, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4394)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The term "facet" has been used in various places, while in most cases it is just a buzz word to replace what is indeed "aspect" or "category". The references below either define and explain the original concept of facet or provide guidelines for building 'real' faceted search/browse. I was interested in faceted classification because it seems to be a natural and efficient way for organizing and browsing Web collections. However, to automatically generate facets and their isolates is extremely difficult since it involves concept extraction and concept grouping, both of which are difficult problems by themselves. And it is almost impossible to achieve mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive 'true' facets without human judgment. Nowadays, faceted search/browse widely exists, implicitly or explicitly, on a majority of retail websites due to the multi-aspects nature of the data. However, it is still rarely seen on any digital library sites. (I could be wrong since I haven't kept myself updated with this field for a while.)

0.004086392 = product of:
  0.032691136 = sum of:
    0.032691136 = weight(_text_:world in 549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032691136 = score(doc=549,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15396032 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.21233483 = fieldWeight in 549, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=549)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

0.0035350774 = product of:
  0.02828062 = sum of:
    0.02828062 = weight(_text_:web in 3102) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02828062 = score(doc=3102,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13072169 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040055543 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 3102, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3102)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Dewey Decimal Classification has been used to organize materials owned by the three scientific libraries at the University of Pavia, and to allow integrated browsing in their union catalogue through SciGator, a home built web-based user interface. Classification acts as a bridge between collections located in different places and shelved according to different local schemes. Furthermore, cross-discipline relationships recorded in the system allow for expanded queries that increase recall. Advantages and possible improvements of such a system are discussed.

0.0033918582 = product of:
  0.027134866 = sum of:
    0.027134866 = product of:
      0.05426973 = sum of:
        0.05426973 = weight(_text_:22 in 611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05426973 = score(doc=611,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14026769 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040055543 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 611, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=611)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

22. 8.2009 12:54:24

0.0027134866 = product of:
  0.021707892 = sum of:
    0.021707892 = product of:
      0.043415785 = sum of:
        0.043415785 = weight(_text_:22 in 2474) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043415785 = score(doc=2474,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14026769 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040055543 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2474, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2474)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

http://www.xml.com/lpt/a/2003/01/22/xfml.html

0.002035115 = product of:
  0.01628092 = sum of:
    0.01628092 = product of:
      0.03256184 = sum of:
        0.03256184 = weight(_text_:22 in 4189) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03256184 = score(doc=4189,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14026769 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040055543 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4189, 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=4189)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

22. 6.2002 19:35:09