Search (73 results, page 1 of 4)

0.042040735 = product of:
  0.16816294 = sum of:
    0.16816294 = product of:
      0.33632588 = sum of:
        0.33632588 = weight(_text_:lehrbuch in 452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.33632588 = score(doc=452,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3139294 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.926203 = idf(docFreq=117, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045324896 = queryNorm
            1.0713423 = fieldWeight in 452, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.926203 = idf(docFreq=117, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=452)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.023876429 = product of:
  0.047752857 = sum of:
    0.03240061 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03240061 = score(doc=3483,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 3483, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3483)
    0.0153522445 = product of:
      0.030704489 = sum of:
        0.030704489 = weight(_text_:22 in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030704489 = score(doc=3483,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15872006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045324896 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Classification is an activity that transcends time and space and that bridges the divisions between different languages and cultures, including the divisions between academic disciplines. Classificatory activity, however, serves different purposes in different situations. Classifications for infonnation retrieval can be called "professional" classifications and classifications in other fields can be called "naïve" classifications because they are developed by people who have no particular interest in classificatory issues. The general purpose of naïve classification systems is to discover new knowledge. In contrast, the general purpose of information retrieval classifications is to classify pre-existing knowledge. Different classificatory purposes may thus inform systems that are intended to span the cultural specifics of the globalized information society. This paper builds an previous research into the purposes and characteristics of naïve classifications. It describes some of the relationships between the purpose and context of a naive classification, the units of analysis used in it, and the theory that the context and the units of analysis imply.

Pages

S.19-22

0.02295776 = product of:
  0.04591552 = sum of:
    0.02749283 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02749283 = score(doc=2464,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2464, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2464)
    0.018422693 = product of:
      0.036845386 = sum of:
        0.036845386 = weight(_text_:22 in 2464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036845386 = score(doc=2464,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15872006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045324896 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2464, 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=2464)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Source

Library trends. 48(1999) no.1, S.22-47

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

0.02295776 = product of:
  0.04591552 = sum of:
    0.02749283 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02749283 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 780, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=780)
    0.018422693 = product of:
      0.036845386 = sum of:
        0.036845386 = weight(_text_:22 in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036845386 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15872006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045324896 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 780, 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=780)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

22.12.2007 17:22:31

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

0.02295776 = product of:
  0.04591552 = sum of:
    0.02749283 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02749283 = score(doc=2945,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2945, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2945)
    0.018422693 = product of:
      0.036845386 = sum of:
        0.036845386 = weight(_text_:22 in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.036845386 = score(doc=2945,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15872006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045324896 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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)

0.019440368 = product of:
  0.07776147 = sum of:
    0.07776147 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07776147 = score(doc=1287,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.5671716 = fieldWeight in 1287, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1287)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Proceedings of the International Study Conference on Classification for Information Retrieval, held at Beatrice Webb House, Dorking, England, 13.-17.5.1957

0.019131469 = product of:
  0.038262937 = sum of:
    0.022910692 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022910692 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 1418, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1418)
    0.0153522445 = product of:
      0.030704489 = sum of:
        0.030704489 = weight(_text_:22 in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030704489 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15872006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045324896 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1418, 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=1418)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Categories, or concepts of high generality representing the most basic kinds of entities in the world, have long been understood to be a fundamental element in the construction of knowledge organization systems (KOSs), particularly faceted ones. Commentators on facet analysis have tended to foreground the role of categories in the structuring of controlled vocabularies and the construction of compound index terms, and the implications of this for subject representation and information retrieval. Less attention has been paid to the variety of ways in which categories can shape the overall architectonic framework of a KOS. This case study explores the range of functions that categories took in structuring various aspects of an early analytico-synthetic KOS, Julius Otto Kaiser's method of Systematic Indexing (SI). Within SI, categories not only functioned as mechanisms to partition an index vocabulary into smaller groupings of terms and as elements in the construction of compound index terms but also served as means of defining the units of indexing, or index items, incorporated into an index; determining the organization of card index files and the articulation of the guide card system serving as a navigational aids thereto; and setting structural constraints to the establishment of cross-references between terms. In all these ways, Kaiser's system of categories contributed to the general systematicity of SI.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.019131469 = product of:
  0.038262937 = sum of:
    0.022910692 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022910692 = score(doc=1778,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 1778, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1778)
    0.0153522445 = product of:
      0.030704489 = sum of:
        0.030704489 = weight(_text_:22 in 1778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030704489 = score(doc=1778,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15872006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045324896 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1778, 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=1778)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to introduce a new similarity method to gauge the differences between two subject hierarchical structures. Design/methodology/approach - In the proposed similarity measure, nodes on two hierarchical structures are projected onto a two-dimensional space, respectively, and both structural similarity and subject similarity of nodes are considered in the similarity between the two hierarchical structures. The extent to which the structural similarity impacts on the similarity can be controlled by adjusting a parameter. An experiment was conducted to evaluate soundness of the measure. Eight experts whose research interests were information retrieval and information organization participated in the study. Results from the new measure were compared with results from the experts. Findings - The evaluation shows strong correlations between the results from the new method and the results from the experts. It suggests that the similarity method achieved satisfactory results. Practical implications - Hierarchical structures that are found in subject directories, taxonomies, classification systems, and other classificatory structures play an extremely important role in information organization and information representation. Measuring the similarity between two subject hierarchical structures allows an accurate overarching understanding of the degree to which the two hierarchical structures are similar. Originality/value - Both structural similarity and subject similarity of nodes were considered in the proposed similarity method, and the extent to which the structural similarity impacts on the similarity can be adjusted. In addition, a new evaluation method for a hierarchical structure similarity was presented.

Date

8. 4.2015 16:22:13

0.016200306 = product of:
  0.06480122 = sum of:
    0.06480122 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 922) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06480122 = score(doc=922,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.47264296 = fieldWeight in 922, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=922)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

0.016037485 = product of:
  0.06414994 = sum of:
    0.06414994 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 564) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06414994 = score(doc=564,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 564, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=564)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Proceedings of the International Study Conference on Classification for Information Retrieval, held at Beatrice Webb House,Dorking, England, 13.-17.5.1957

0.016037485 = product of:
  0.06414994 = sum of:
    0.06414994 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4971) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06414994 = score(doc=4971,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 4971, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=4971)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.0153051745 = product of:
  0.030610349 = sum of:
    0.018328553 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018328553 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
    0.012281795 = product of:
      0.02456359 = sum of:
        0.02456359 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02456359 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15872006 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045324896 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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

0.013746415 = product of:
  0.05498566 = sum of:
    0.05498566 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05498566 = score(doc=566,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 566, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=566)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Proceedings of the International Study Conference on Classification for Information Retrieval, held at Beatrice Webb House, Dorking, England, 13.-17.5.1957

0.012960245 = product of:
  0.05184098 = sum of:
    0.05184098 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05184098 = score(doc=562,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 562, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=562)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Wiederabdruck aus: Proceedings of the International Study Conference on Classification for Information Retrieval, Dorking. London: Aslib 1957.

0.012960245 = product of:
  0.05184098 = sum of:
    0.05184098 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05184098 = score(doc=5478,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 5478, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5478)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

Content

Beitrag eines Themenheftes "Knowledge organization and classification in international information retrieval"

0.012960245 = product of:
  0.05184098 = sum of:
    0.05184098 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05184098 = score(doc=766,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 766, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=766)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper looks at the epistemological foundations of knowledge representations embodied in retrieval languages. It considers questions such as the validity of knowledge representations and their effectiveness for the purposes of retrieval and automation. The knowledge representations it considers are derived from three theories of meaning that have dominated twentieth-century philosophy.

0.012807466 = product of:
  0.051229864 = sum of:
    0.051229864 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051229864 = score(doc=2874,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.37365708 = fieldWeight in 2874, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2874)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.011904745 = product of:
  0.04761898 = sum of:
    0.04761898 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 831) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04761898 = score(doc=831,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 831, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=831)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The main object of the paper is to demonstrate in detail the role of classification in information retrieval (IR) and the design of classificatory structures by the application of logical division to all forms of the content of records, subject and imaginative. The natural product of such division is a faceted classification. The latter is seen not as a particular kind of library classification but the only viable form enabling the locating and relating of information to be optimally predictable. A detailed exposition of the practical steps in facet analysis is given, drawing on the experience of the new Bliss Classification (BC2). The continued existence of the library as a highly organized information store is assumed. But, it is argued, it must acknowledge the relevance of the revolution in library classification that has taken place. It considers also how alphabetically arranged subject indexes may utilize controlled use of categorical (generically inclusive) and syntactic relations to produce similarly predictable locating and relating systems for IR.

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

0.011904745 = product of:
  0.04761898 = sum of:
    0.04761898 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04761898 = score(doc=534,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 534, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=534)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In free classification, each concept is expressed by a constant notation, and classmarks are formed by free combinations of them, allowing the retrieval of records from a database by searching any of the component concepts. A refinement of free classification is freely faceted classification, where notation can include facets, expressing the kind of relations held between the concepts. The Integrative Level Classification project aims at testing free and freely faceted classification by applying them to small bibliographical samples in various domains. A sample, called the Dandelion Bibliography of Facet Analysis, is described here. Experience was gained using this system to classify 300 specialized papers dealing with facet analysis itself recorded on a MySQL database and building a Web interface exploiting freely faceted notation. The interface is written in PHP and uses string functions to process the queries and to yield relevant results selected and ordered according to the principles of integrative levels.

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

0.011904745 = product of:
  0.04761898 = sum of:
    0.04761898 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04761898 = score(doc=615,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13710396 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.045324896 = queryNorm
        0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 615, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=615)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In the article, the author aims to clarify some of the issues surrounding the discussion regarding the usefulness of a substantive classification theory in information science (IS) by means of a broad perspective. By utilizing a concrete example from the High Accuracy Retrieval from Documents (HARD) track of a Text REtrieval Conference (TREC), the author suggests that the bag of words approach to information retrieval (IR) and techniques such as relevance feedback have significant limitations in expressing and resolving complex user information needs. He argues that a comprehensive analysis of information needs involves explicating often-implicit assumptions made by the authors of scholarly documents, as well as everyday texts such as news articles. He also argues that progress in IS can be furthered by developing general theories that are applicable to multiple domains. The concrete example of application of the domain-analytic approach to subject analysis in IS to the aesthetic evaluation of works of information arts is used to support this argument.