Search (44 results, page 1 of 3)

0.006449167 = product of:
  0.058042504 = sum of:
    0.058042504 = weight(_text_:open in 6606) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058042504 = score(doc=6606,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14582425 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.39803052 = fieldWeight in 6606, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6606)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Source

Open. 25(1993) no.3, S.101-104

0.0061918716 = product of:
  0.027863422 = sum of:
    0.020551153 = weight(_text_:access in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020551153 = score(doc=5562,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.18724121 = fieldWeight in 5562, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5562)
    0.0073122694 = product of:
      0.021936808 = sum of:
        0.021936808 = weight(_text_:22 in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021936808 = score(doc=5562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11339747 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03238235 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5562, 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=5562)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

For my segment of this program I'd like to focus on some basic qualities of classification schemes. These qualities are critical to our ability to truly organize knowledge for access. As I see it, there are at least five qualities of note. The first one of these properties that I want to talk about is "authoritative." By this I mean standardized, but I mean more than standardized with a built in consensus-building process. A classification scheme constructed by a collaborative, consensus-building process carries the approval, and the authority, of the discipline groups that contribute to it and that it affects... The next property of classification systems is "expandable," living, responsive, with a clear locus of responsibility for its continuous upkeep. The worst thing you can do with a thesaurus, or a classification scheme, is to finish it. You can't ever finish it because it reflects ongoing intellectual activity... The third property is "intuitive." That is, the system has to be approachable, it has to be transparent, or at least capable of being transparent. It has to have an underlying logic that supports the classification scheme but doesn't dominate it... The fourth property is "organized and logical." I advocate very strongly, and agree with Lois Chan, that classification must be based on a rule-based structure, on somebody's world-view of the syndetic structure... The fifth property is "universal" by which I mean the classification scheme needs be useable by any specific system or application, and be available as a language for multiple purposes.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 21(1995) no.2, S.19-22

0.0056430213 = product of:
  0.05078719 = sum of:
    0.05078719 = weight(_text_:open in 4136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05078719 = score(doc=4136,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14582425 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.3482767 = fieldWeight in 4136, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4136)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Several desiderata of a system of subject classification for museums are identified. The limitations of existing approaches are reviewed. It is argued that an approach which synthesizes basic concepts within a grammatical structure can achieve the goals of subject classification in museums while addressing diverse challenges. The same approach can also be applied in galleries, archives, and libraries. The approach is described in some detail and examples are provided of its application. The article closes with brief discussions of thesauri and linked open data.

0.0049534976 = product of:
  0.022290738 = sum of:
    0.016440922 = weight(_text_:access in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016440922 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.14979297 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
    0.0058498154 = product of:
      0.017549446 = sum of:
        0.017549446 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017549446 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11339747 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03238235 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

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

0.004836875 = product of:
  0.043531876 = sum of:
    0.043531876 = weight(_text_:open in 2632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043531876 = score(doc=2632,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14582425 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.2985229 = fieldWeight in 2632, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2632)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

This paper focuses on the need for knowledge organization (KO) tools, such as library classifications, thesauri and subject heading systems, to be fully disclosed and available in the open network environment. The authors look at the place and value of traditional library knowledge organization tools in relation to the technical environment and expectations of the Semantic Web. Future requirements in this context are explored, stressing the need for KO systems to support semantic interoperability. In order to be fully shareable KO tools need to be reframed and reshaped in terms of conceptual and data models. The authors suggest that some useful approaches to this already exist in methodological and technical developments within the fields of ontology modelling and lexicographic and terminological data interchange.

0.004836875 = product of:
  0.043531876 = sum of:
    0.043531876 = weight(_text_:open in 3533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043531876 = score(doc=3533,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14582425 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.2985229 = fieldWeight in 3533, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3533)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Ontology, in its philosophical meaning, is the discipline investigating the structure of reality. Its findings can be relevant to knowledge organization, and models of knowledge can, in turn, offer relevant ontological suggestions. Several philosophers in time have pointed out that reality is structured into a series of integrative levels, like the physical, the biological, the mental, and the cultural, and that each level plays as a base for the emergence of more complex levels. More detailed theories of levels have been developed by Nicolai Hartmann and James K. Feibleman, and these have been considered as a source for structuring principles in bibliographic classification by both the Classification Research Group (CRG) and Ingetraut Dahlberg. CRG's analysis of levels and of their possible application to a new general classification scheme based an phenomena instead of disciplines, as it was formulated by Derek Austin in 1969, is examined in detail. Both benefits and open problems in applying integrative levels to bibliographic classification are pointed out.

0.004030729 = product of:
  0.036276564 = sum of:
    0.036276564 = weight(_text_:open in 1482) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036276564 = score(doc=1482,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14582425 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.24876907 = fieldWeight in 1482, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1482)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Colon Classification (CC) is truly the first freely faceted scheme for library classification devised and propagated by Dr. S.R. Ranganathan. The scheme is being taught in theory and practice to the students in most of the LIS schools in India and abroad also. Many manuals, Guide books and Introductory works have been published on CC in the past. But the present work tread a new path in presenting CC to the student, teaching and professional community. The present work Colon Classification: Theory and Practice; A Self Instructional Manual is the result of author's twenty-five years experience of teaching theory and practice of CC to the students of LIS. For the first ime concerted and systematic attempt has been made to present theory and practice of CC in self-instructional mode, keeping in view the requirements of students learners of Open Universities/ Distance Education Institutions in particular. The other singificant and novel features introduced in this manual are: Presenting the scope of each block consisting certain units bollowed by objectives, introduction, sections, sub-sections, self check exercises, glossary and assignment of each unit. It is hoped that all these features will help the users/readers of this manual to understand and grasp quickly, the intricacies involved in theory and practice of CC(6th Edition). The manual is presented in three blocks and twelve units.

0.004030729 = product of:
  0.036276564 = sum of:
    0.036276564 = weight(_text_:open in 5800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036276564 = score(doc=5800,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14582425 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.24876907 = fieldWeight in 5800, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5800)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Shiyali Ramamrita Ranganathan's theory of classification spans a number of works over a number of decades. And while he was devoted to solving many problems in the practice of librarianship, and is known as the father of library science in India (Garfield, 1984), his work in classification revolves around one central concern. His classification research addressed the problems that arose from introducing new ideas into a scheme for classification, while maintaining a meaningful hierarchical and systematically arranged order of classes. This is because hierarchical and systematically arranged classes are the defining characteristic of useful classification. To lose this order is to through the addition of new classes is to introduce confusion, if not chaos, and to move toward a useless classification - or at least one that requires complete revision. In the following chapter, I outline the stages, and the elements of those stages, in Ranganathan's thought on classification from 1926-1972, as well as posthumous work that continues his agenda. And while facets figure prominently in all of these stages; but for Ranganathan to achieve his goal, he must continually add to this central feature of his theory of classification. I will close this chapter with an outline of persistent problems that represent research fronts for the field. Chief among these are what to do about scheme change and the open question about the rigor of information modeling in light of semantic web developments.

0.004030729 = product of:
  0.036276564 = sum of:
    0.036276564 = weight(_text_:open in 1099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036276564 = score(doc=1099,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14582425 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.24876907 = fieldWeight in 1099, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1099)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Hierarchies abound to help us organize our world. A hierarchy places items into a general order, where more 'general' is also more 'abstract'. The etymology of hierarchy is grounded in notions of religious and social rank. This article, after a historical review, focuses on knowledge systems, an interloper of the term hierarchy since at least the 1800s. Hierarchies in knowledge systems include taxonomies, classification systems, or thesauri in information science, and systems for representing information and knowledge to computers, notably ontologies and knowledge representation languages. Hierarchies are the logical underpinning of inference and reasoning in these systems, as well as the scaffolding for classification and inheritance. Hierarchies in knowledge systems express subsumption relations that have flexible variants, which we can represent algorithmically, and thus computationally. This article dissects that variability, leading to a proposed typology of hierarchies useful to knowledge systems. The article argues through a perspective informed by Charles Peirce that natural hierarchies are real, can be logically determined, and are the appropriate basis for knowledge systems. Description logics and semantic language standards reflect this perspective, importantly through their open-world logic and vocabularies for generalized subsumption hierarchies. Recent research suggests possible mechanisms for the emergence of natural hierarchies.

0.0036535384 = product of:
  0.032881845 = sum of:
    0.032881845 = weight(_text_:access in 5099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032881845 = score(doc=5099,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.29958594 = fieldWeight in 5099, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5099)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

0.0036535384 = product of:
  0.032881845 = sum of:
    0.032881845 = weight(_text_:access in 5478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032881845 = score(doc=5478,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.29958594 = fieldWeight in 5478, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5478)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Discusses problems related to accessing multiple collections using a single retrieval language. Surveys the concepts of interoperability and switching language. Finds that mapping between more indexing languages always will be an approximation. Surveys the issues related to general classification and contrasts that to special classifications. Argues for the use of general classifications to provide access to collections nationally and internationally.

0.0031968462 = product of:
  0.028771617 = sum of:
    0.028771617 = weight(_text_:access in 1483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028771617 = score(doc=1483,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 1483, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1483)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Facet analysis has been one of the foremost contenders as a design principle for information retrieval classifications, both manual and electronic in the last fifty years. Evidence is presented that the facet concept has a claim to be considered as a method of subdivision that is cognitively available to human beings, regardless of language, culture, or academic discipline. The possibility that faceting is a universal method of subdivision enhances the claim that facet analysis as an unusually useful design principle for information retrieval classifications in any field. This possibility needs further investigation in an age when information access across boundaries is both necessary and possible.

0.0031968462 = product of:
  0.028771617 = sum of:
    0.028771617 = weight(_text_:access in 3846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028771617 = score(doc=3846,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 3846, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3846)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Taxonomy reflects the human instinct to organize. Once limited in Western culture to certain natural sciences, in the early twenty-first century, it has expanded to many domains, practices, and uses. Domains now include almost anything of interest, but particularly those motivated by business needs. Practices and uses include description, analysis, prediction, mapping terminology, information access, representation of knowledge, and tool-building. For information science, taxonomy is a powerful tool for connecting information content with information consumers effectively and efficiently.

0.0031968462 = product of:
  0.028771617 = sum of:
    0.028771617 = weight(_text_:access in 5717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028771617 = score(doc=5717,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.2621377 = fieldWeight in 5717, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5717)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Bibliographic classification is among the core activities of Library & Information Science that brings order and proper management to the holdings of a library. Compared to printed media, digital collections present numerous challenges regarding their preservation, curation, organization and resource discovery & access. Therefore, true native perspective is needed to be adopted for bibliographic classification in digital environments. In this research article, we have investigated and reported different approaches to bibliographic classification of digital collections. The article also contributes two evaluation frameworks that evaluate the existing classification schemes and systems. The article presents a bird's-eye view for researchers in reaching a generalized and holistic approach towards bibliographic classification research, where new research avenues have been identified.

0.0027401538 = product of:
  0.024661385 = sum of:
    0.024661385 = weight(_text_:access in 1586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024661385 = score(doc=1586,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.22468945 = fieldWeight in 1586, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1586)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Content

Enthält die Beiträge: DAVENPORT, E.: Implicit orders: documentary genres and organizational practice; ANDERSEN, J. u. F.S. CHRISTENSEN: Wittgenstein and indexing theory; OLSON, H.A.: Cultural discourses of classification: indigeous alternatives to the tradition of Aristotle, Dürkheim, and Foucault; FRÂNCU, V.: A universal classification system going through changes; JACOB, E.K. u. U. PRISS: Nontraditional indexing structures for the management of electronic resources; BROOKS, T.A.: Relevance auras: macro patterns and micro scatter; RUIZ, M.E. u. SRINIVASAN, P.: Combining machine learning and hierarchical indexing structures for text categorization; WEEDMAN, J.: Local practice and the growth of knowledge: decisions in subject access to digitized images

0.0027401538 = product of:
  0.024661385 = sum of:
    0.024661385 = weight(_text_:access in 4690) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024661385 = score(doc=4690,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.22468945 = fieldWeight in 4690, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4690)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Classification schemes, such as the DMoZ web directory, provide a convenient and intuitive way for humans to access classified contents. While being easy to be dealt with for humans, classification schemes remain hard to be reasoned about by automated software agents. Among other things, this hardness is conditioned by the ambiguous na- ture of the natural language used to describe classification categories. In this paper we describe how classification schemes can be converted into OWL ontologies, thus enabling reasoning on them by Semantic Web applications. The proposed solution is based on a two phase approach in which category names are first encoded in a concept language and then, together with the structure of the classification scheme, are converted into an OWL ontology. We demonstrate the practical applicability of our approach by showing how the results of reasoning on these OWL ontologies can help improve the organization and use of web directories.

0.0022834614 = product of:
  0.020551153 = sum of:
    0.020551153 = weight(_text_:access in 2527) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020551153 = score(doc=2527,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.18724121 = fieldWeight in 2527, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2527)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Content

Beitrag anlässlich: Proceedings of the International Seminar "Information access for the global community", 4-5 June 2007, The Hague. - Vgl.: http://www.udcc.org/seminar07/presentations/gnoli.pdf.

0.0022834614 = product of:
  0.020551153 = sum of:
    0.020551153 = weight(_text_:access in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020551153 = score(doc=2874,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10975764 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.18724121 = fieldWeight in 2874, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2874)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

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.

0.0020153646 = product of:
  0.018138282 = sum of:
    0.018138282 = weight(_text_:open in 2467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018138282 = score(doc=2467,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14582425 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03238235 = queryNorm
        0.12438454 = fieldWeight in 2467, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2467)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

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.

0.0019499385 = product of:
  0.017549446 = sum of:
    0.017549446 = product of:
      0.052648336 = sum of:
        0.052648336 = weight(_text_:22 in 6404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052648336 = score(doc=6404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11339747 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03238235 = 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)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Date

1. 8.1996 22:01:00