Search (43 results, page 1 of 3)

0.023042366 = product of:
  0.1382542 = sum of:
    0.1382542 = weight(_text_:relationship in 3527) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1382542 = score(doc=3527,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.6030949 = fieldWeight in 3527, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3527)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Psychologists, philosophers and linguists analyse concepts and investigate their relationship to words. Concepts are also relevant to the issue of bibliographic classification, i.e. "catagorisation". Examines from a chronological point of view the various theories for the analysis and organisation of concepts ranging from the Vickery developed in 1954, to Austin's hypotheses, to Ranganathan's "fundamental categories" and the contribution made by CRG, the Classification Research Group. Illustrates other approaches to categorisation such as Farradane's (relationship between couples of concepts) and calls for a closer study of categories and concepts.

0.02016207 = product of:
  0.12097242 = sum of:
    0.12097242 = weight(_text_:relationship in 836) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12097242 = score(doc=836,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.527708 = fieldWeight in 836, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=836)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Bibliography provides a compelling vantage from which to study the interconnection of classification, rhetoric, and the making of knowledge. Bibliography, and the related activities of classification and retrieval, bears a direct relationship to textual studies and rhetoric. The paper examines this relationship by briefly tracing the development of bibliography forward into issues concomitant with the emergence of classification for retrieval. A striking similarity to problems raised in rhetoric and which spring from common concerns and intellectual sources is demonstrated around Gadamer's notion of intellectual horizon. Classification takes place within a horizon of material conditions and social constraints that are best viewed through a hermeneutic or deconstructive lens, termed the "classificatory horizon."

0.017281776 = product of:
  0.103690654 = sum of:
    0.103690654 = weight(_text_:relationship in 2045) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.103690654 = score(doc=2045,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.45232117 = fieldWeight in 2045, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2045)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.016293414 = product of:
  0.097760476 = sum of:
    0.097760476 = weight(_text_:relationship in 1603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.097760476 = score(doc=1603,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.42645246 = fieldWeight in 1603, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1603)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Discusses the basic criteria for comparison of classification for libraries. Identifies a set of intellectual criteria, derived from the general theory of library classification as expounded by Dewey, Bliss, and Ranganathan. Compares LC, DC, and BC in relation criteria namely - order, university, hospitality, adaptability, terminology, relationship, synthesis, notational features - simplicity, brevity, expressiveness, specifity, synonymity, flexibility, correlation, case of use, revision and practical use. Highlights the value of comparative studies among classification schemes

0.016293414 = product of:
  0.097760476 = sum of:
    0.097760476 = weight(_text_:relationship in 6606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.097760476 = score(doc=6606,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.42645246 = fieldWeight in 6606, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6606)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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

0.016293414 = product of:
  0.097760476 = sum of:
    0.097760476 = weight(_text_:relationship in 5559) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.097760476 = score(doc=5559,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.42645246 = fieldWeight in 5559, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5559)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Discusses classification as a central resource of human informational activity and as a central aspect of research for many sciences. Argues that thinking about the background of classification can help improve, or at least clarify, the practical tasks of documentary workers and librarians. Discusses the relationship and gaps between cognitive science and information science, and considers the contributions of epistemology and cognitive psychology; in particular, focuses on the role of the latter in the development of an integrative theory of classification

0.016293414 = product of:
  0.097760476 = sum of:
    0.097760476 = weight(_text_:relationship in 3253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.097760476 = score(doc=3253,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.42645246 = fieldWeight in 3253, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3253)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Considering fields as diverse as the history of science, Internet studies, border studies, and coalition politics, the article gives an historical overview of how the knowledge around queer phenomena has been structured, tabulated, and spacialized: the hazards, coercive and productive qualities, as well as queer's paradoxical relationship as both resistant to and reliant on categories, classification, and knowledge structures. In the process, the article also considers the development of Western hierarchical knowledge structures in relation to societal power dynamics, proximity, and space.

0.014256737 = product of:
  0.08554042 = sum of:
    0.08554042 = weight(_text_:relationship in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08554042 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.3731459 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Arguing that an established technical terminology is crucial to the development of a discipline, and that classification terminology is neither well settled nor widely used by its exponents, this paper provides an explanation of some of the concepts generally accepted by classification theorists. In particular, the elaborate terminology generated by S.R. Ranganathan is examined. Definitions are provided for numerous concepts, including "classification"; "characteristics" and "attributes"; the genus-species relationship; the types of classes (canonical, systems, special, and environmental main classes); the kinds of subject (basic, compound, complex); as well as concepts such as facets, isolates, arrays, and chains. Comparisons between different classification systems, specifically the Dewey Decimal Classification, Colon Classification, and Library of Congress Classification, are also made

0.014256737 = product of:
  0.08554042 = sum of:
    0.08554042 = weight(_text_:relationship in 2672) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08554042 = score(doc=2672,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.3731459 = fieldWeight in 2672, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2672)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

The argument presented here seeks to extend the notion of the classification scheme as a culturally-transmitted tool by emphasizing the cognitive value of the scheme's internal patterns of relationship. lt elaborates an the use of classification as cognitive scaffolding (Jacob, 2001) and amplifies this idea through application of three constructs - constraints, selections and expectations - derived from Luhmann's (1995) theory of social systems.

0.014256737 = product of:
  0.08554042 = sum of:
    0.08554042 = weight(_text_:relationship in 4172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08554042 = score(doc=4172,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.3731459 = fieldWeight in 4172, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4172)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to find a relationship between traditional faceted classification schemes and semantic web document annotators, particularly in the linked data environment. Design/methodology/approach - A consideration of the conceptual ideas behind faceted classification and linked data architecture is made. Analysis of selected web documents is performed using Calais' Semantic Proxy to support the considerations. Findings - Technical language aside, the principles of both approaches are very similar. Modern classification techniques have the potential to automatically generate metadata to drive more precise information recall by including a semantic layer. Originality/value - Linked data have not been explicitly considered in this context before in the published literature.

0.012874847 = product of:
  0.07724908 = sum of:
    0.07724908 = weight(_text_:22 in 6404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07724908 = score(doc=6404,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.012874847 = product of:
  0.07724908 = sum of:
    0.07724908 = weight(_text_:22 in 3773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07724908 = score(doc=3773,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00

0.012874847 = product of:
  0.07724908 = sum of:
    0.07724908 = weight(_text_:22 in 3176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07724908 = score(doc=3176,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = 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)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

6. 5.2017 18:46:22

0.01222006 = product of:
  0.07332036 = sum of:
    0.07332036 = weight(_text_:relationship in 8863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07332036 = score(doc=8863,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.31983936 = fieldWeight in 8863, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=8863)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Based on the works of Aristotle, Ramon Lull, I. Kant and the experiences with relationships published in the works of S.R. Ranganathan, E.de Grolier, J. Mills, J.C. Costello, E. Wall, R. Pagès, A. Leroy, P. Braffort, M. Kervégant, J.C. Gardin and J. Farradane, categories and relationships were collected, analyzed, grouped and classified in a triadic way so that a scheme resulted by which 120 relationships could be defined and identified by their positions and their codes. The exercise was meant to create and supply a tool for the replacement of the non-significant relation symbol, the colon, in the UDC by a letter code which could express the actual relationship contained in a classificatory statement. Examples for their application illustrate different cases occuring

0.01222006 = product of:
  0.07332036 = sum of:
    0.07332036 = weight(_text_:relationship in 1138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07332036 = score(doc=1138,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.31983936 = fieldWeight in 1138, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1138)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In a changing information environment, we need to reassess each element of bibliographic control, including classification theories and systems. Every classification system is a theoretical construct imposed an "reality." The classificatory relationships that are assumed to be valuable have generally received less attention than the topics included in the systems. Relationships are functions of both the syntactic and semantic axes of classification systems, and both explicit and implicit relationships are discussed. Examples are drawn from a number of different systems, both bibliographic and non-bibliographic, and the cultural warrant (i. e., the sociocultural context) of classification systems is examined. The part-whole relationship is discussed as an example of a universally valid concept that is treated as a component of the cultural warrant of a classification system.

0.011521183 = product of:
  0.0691271 = sum of:
    0.0691271 = weight(_text_:relationship in 311) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0691271 = score(doc=311,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.30154744 = fieldWeight in 311, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=311)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.

0.010183383 = product of:
  0.061100297 = sum of:
    0.061100297 = weight(_text_:relationship in 3487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061100297 = score(doc=3487,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.26653278 = fieldWeight in 3487, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3487)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This paper argues that the semantic axis of bibliographic classification systems can be found in the various warrants that have been used to justify the utility of classification systems. Classificationists, theorists, and critics have emphasized the syntactic aspects of classification theories and systems, but a number of semantic warrants can be identified. The evolution of four semantic warrants is traced through the development of twentieth-century classification theory: literary warrant, scientific/philosophical warrant, educational warrant, and cultural warrant. It is concluded that further examination of semantic warrants might make possible a rationalized approach to the creation of classification systems for particular uses. The attention of scholars on faceted schemes and classificatory structures had heretofore pulled our attention to the syntactic aspects (e.g., concept division and citation order), with semantics being considered more or less a question of the terms and their relationships and somewhat taken for granted, or at least construed as a unitary aspect. Attention is on the choice of the classes and their meaning, as well as their connection to the world, and not so much on their syntactic relationship. This notion is developed by providing an historical and conceptual overview of the various kinds of warrant discernible in working with bibliographic systems. In Beghtol's definition, warrant concerns more than just the selection of terms, but rather the mapping of a classification system to the context and uses.

0.010183383 = product of:
  0.061100297 = sum of:
    0.061100297 = weight(_text_:relationship in 4850) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061100297 = score(doc=4850,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.26653278 = fieldWeight in 4850, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4850)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Faceted classification is based on the core ideas that there are kinds or categories of concepts, and that compound, or non-elemental, concepts, which are ubiquitous in classification and subject annotation, are to be identified as being constructions of concepts of the different kinds. The categories of concepts are facets, and the individual concepts, which are instances of those facets, are foci. Usually, there are constraints on how the foci can be combined into the compound concepts. What is standard is that any combination of foci is permitted from kind-to-kind across facets, but that the foci within a facet are restricted in their use by virtue of being dependent on each other, either by being exclusive of each other or by bearing some kind of hierarchical relationship to each other. Thus faceted classification is typically considered to be a synthetic classification consisting of orthogonal facets which themselves are composed individually either of exclusive foci or of a hierarchy of foci. This paper addresses in particular this second exclusive-or-hierarchical foci condition. It evaluates the arguments for the condition and finds them not conclusive. It suggests that wider synthetic constructions should be allowed on foci within a facet.

0.008583232 = product of:
  0.05149939 = sum of:
    0.05149939 = weight(_text_:22 in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05149939 = score(doc=7242,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7242, 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=7242)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

22. 4.1997 21:10:19

0.008583232 = product of:
  0.05149939 = sum of:
    0.05149939 = weight(_text_:22 in 1171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05149939 = score(doc=1171,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1171, 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=1171)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Bulletin d'informations de l'Association des Bibliothecaires Francais. 1997, no.175, S.22-23