Search (42 results, page 1 of 3)

0.00546202 = product of:
  0.01911707 = sum of:
    0.00439427 = product of:
      0.02197135 = sum of:
        0.02197135 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02197135 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.0147228 = product of:
      0.0294456 = sum of:
        0.0294456 = weight(_text_:22 in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0294456 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Date

22.12.2007 17:22:31

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

0.0049850564 = product of:
  0.017447697 = sum of:
    0.005178697 = product of:
      0.025893483 = sum of:
        0.025893483 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025893483 = score(doc=3483,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.0122690005 = product of:
      0.024538001 = sum of:
        0.024538001 = weight(_text_:22 in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024538001 = score(doc=3483,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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

0.003641347 = product of:
  0.012744714 = sum of:
    0.0029295133 = product of:
      0.014647567 = sum of:
        0.014647567 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014647567 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.0098152 = product of:
      0.0196304 = sum of:
        0.0196304 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0196304 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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

0.0035357005 = product of:
  0.024749903 = sum of:
    0.024749903 = product of:
      0.061874755 = sum of:
        0.0380555 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0380555 = score(doc=534,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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)
        0.023819257 = weight(_text_:system in 534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023819257 = score(doc=534,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 534, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=534)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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

0.003136654 = product of:
  0.021956576 = sum of:
    0.021956576 = product of:
      0.054891437 = sum of:
        0.03107218 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03107218 = score(doc=2651,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 2651, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2651)
        0.023819257 = weight(_text_:system in 2651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023819257 = score(doc=2651,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 2651, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2651)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The paper analyses the importance of data presentation and modelling and its role in improving the management, use and exchange of analytico-synthetic classifications in automated systems. Inefficiencies, in this respect, hinder the automation of classification systems that offer the possibility of building compound index/search terms. The lack of machine readable data expressing the semantics and structure of a classification vocabulary has negative effects on information management and retrieval, thus restricting the potential of both automated systems and classifications themselves. The authors analysed the data representation structure of three general analytico-synthetic classification systems (BC2-Bliss Bibliographic Classification; BSO-Broad System of Ordering; UDC-Universal Decimal Classification) and put forward some core requirements for classification data representation

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

0.0028043431 = product of:
  0.0196304 = sum of:
    0.0196304 = product of:
      0.0392608 = sum of:
        0.0392608 = weight(_text_:22 in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0392608 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5083, 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=5083)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

27. 5.2007 22:19:35

0.0027553656 = product of:
  0.019287558 = sum of:
    0.019287558 = product of:
      0.048218895 = sum of:
        0.020714786 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020714786 = score(doc=2875,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.18905719 = fieldWeight in 2875, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2875)
        0.027504109 = weight(_text_:system in 2875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027504109 = score(doc=2875,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.24108742 = fieldWeight in 2875, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2875)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to provide an overview of principles and procedures involved in creating a faceted classification scheme for use in resource discovery in an online environment. Design/methodology/approach - Facet analysis provides an established rigorous methodology for the conceptual organization of a subject field, and the structuring of an associated classification or controlled vocabulary. This paper explains how that methodology was applied to the humanities in the FATKS project, where the objective was to explore the potential of facet analytical theory for creating a controlled vocabulary for the humanities, and to establish the requirements of a faceted classification appropriate to an online environment. A detailed faceted vocabulary was developed for two areas of the humanities within a broader facet framework for the whole of knowledge. Research issues included how to create a data model which made the faceted structure explicit and machine-readable and provided for its further development and use. Findings - In order to support easy facet combination in indexing, and facet searching and browsing on the interface, faceted classification requires a formalized data structure and an appropriate tool for its management. The conceptual framework of a faceted system proper can be applied satisfactorily to humanities, and fully integrated within a vocabulary management system. Research limitations/implications - The procedures described in this paper are concerned only with the structuring of the classification, and do not extend to indexing, retrieval and application issues. Practical implications - Many stakeholders in the domain of resource discovery consider developing their own classification system and supporting tools. The methods described in this paper may clarify the process of building a faceted classification and may provide some useful ideas with respect to the vocabulary maintenance tool. Originality/value - As far as the authors are aware there is no comparable research in this area.

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

0.0026166062 = product of:
  0.018316243 = sum of:
    0.018316243 = product of:
      0.045790605 = sum of:
        0.02197135 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02197135 = score(doc=1586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 1586, 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=1586)
        0.023819257 = weight(_text_:system in 1586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023819257 = score(doc=1586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 1586, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1586)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

0.0024538 = product of:
  0.0171766 = sum of:
    0.0171766 = product of:
      0.0343532 = sum of:
        0.0343532 = weight(_text_:22 in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0343532 = score(doc=166,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 166, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=166)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.0019122947 = product of:
  0.013386062 = sum of:
    0.013386062 = product of:
      0.033465154 = sum of:
        0.00915473 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00915473 = score(doc=2467,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.08355226 = fieldWeight in 2467, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2467)
        0.024310427 = weight(_text_:system in 2467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024310427 = score(doc=2467,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.21309318 = fieldWeight in 2467, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2467)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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.

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

0.001855229 = product of:
  0.012986602 = sum of:
    0.012986602 = product of:
      0.032466505 = sum of:
        0.012816621 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012816621 = score(doc=3536,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.11697317 = fieldWeight in 3536, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3536)
        0.019649884 = weight(_text_:system in 3536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019649884 = score(doc=3536,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.17224117 = fieldWeight in 3536, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3536)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

I am writing to correct some of the misconceptions that Hjoerland and Nicolaisen appear to have about my paper in the previous issue of Knowledge Organization. I would like to address aspects of two of these misapprehensions. The first is the faulty interpretation they have given to my use of the term "naïve classification," and the second is the kinds of classification systems that they appear to believe are discussed in my paper as examples of "naïve classifications." First, the term "naïve classification" is directly analogous to the widely-understood and widelyaccepted term "naïve indexing." It is not analogous to the terms to which Hjorland and Nicolaisen compare it (i.e., "naïve physics", "naïve biology"). The term as I have defined it is not pejorative. It does not imply that the scholars who have developed naïve classifications have not given profoundly serious thought to their own scholarly work. My paper distinguishes between classifications for new knowledge developed by scholars in the various disciplines for the purposes of advancing disciplinary knowledge ("naïve classifications") and classifications for previously existing knowledge developed by information professionals for the purposes of creating access points in information retrieval systems ("professional classifications"). This distinction rests primarily an the purpose of the kind of classification system in question and only secondarily an the knowledge base of the scholars who have created it. Hjoerland and Nicolaisen appear to have misunderstood this point, which is made clearly and adequately in the title, in the abstract and throughout the text of my paper.
Second, the paper posits that these different reasons for creating classification systems strongly influence the content and extent of the two kinds of classifications, but not necessarily their structures. By definition, naïve classifications for new knowledge have been developed for discrete areas of disciplinary inquiry in new areas of knowledge. These classifications do not attempt to classify the whole of that disciplinary area. That is, naïve classifications have a explicit purpose that is significantly different from the purpose of the major disciplinary classifications Hjoer-land and Nicolaisen provide as examples of classifications they think I discuss under the rubric of "naïve classifications" (e.g., classifications for the entire field of archaeology, biology, linguistics, music, psychology, etc.). My paper is not concerned with these important classifications for major disciplinary areas. Instead, it is concerned solely and specifically with scholarly classifications for small areas of new knowledge within these major disciplines (e.g., cloth of aresta, double harpsichords, child-rearing practices, anomalous phenomena, etc.). Thus, I have nowhere suggested or implied that the broad disciplinary classifications mentioned by Hjoerland and Nicolaisen are appropriately categorized as "naïve classifications." For example, I have not associated the Periodic System of the Elements with naïve classifications, as Hjoerland and Nicolaisen state that I have done. Indeed, broad classifications of this type fall well outside the definition of naïve classifications set out in my paper. In this case, too, 1 believe that Hjorland and Nicolaisen have misunderstood an important point in my paper. I agree with a number of points made in Hjorland and Nicolaisen's paper. In particular, I agree that researchers in the knowledge organization field should adhere to the highest standards of scholarly and scientific precision. For that reason, I am glad to have had the opportunity to respond to their paper.

0.0017444041 = product of:
  0.012210828 = sum of:
    0.012210828 = product of:
      0.03052707 = sum of:
        0.014647567 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014647567 = score(doc=2764,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 2764, 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=2764)
        0.015879504 = weight(_text_:system in 2764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015879504 = score(doc=2764,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.13919188 = fieldWeight in 2764, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2764)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Prior to the OPAC many institutions devised classifications to suit their special needs. Others expanded or altered general schemes to accommodate specific approaches. A driving force in the creation of these classifications was the Classification Research Group, celebrating its golden jubilee in 2002, whose work created a framework and body of principles that remain valid for the retrieval needs of today. The paper highlights some of these special schemes and highlights the fundamental principles which remain valid. 1. Introduction The distinction between a general and a special classification scheme is made frequently in the textbooks, but is one that it is sometimes difficult to draw. The Library of Congress classification could be described as the special classification par excellence. Normally, however, a special classification is taken to be one that is restricted to a specific subject, and quite often used in one specific context only, either a library or a bibliographic listing or for a specific purpose such as a search engine and it is in this sense that I propose to examine some of these schemes. Today, there is a widespread preference for searching an words as a supplement to the use of a standard system, usually the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC). This is enhanced by the ability to search documents full-text in a computerized environment, a situation that did not exist 20 or 30 years ago. Today's situation is a great improvement in many ways, but it does depend upon the words used by the author and the searcher corresponding, and often presupposes the use of English. In libraries, the use of co-operative services and precatalogued records already provided with classification data has also spelt the demise of the special scheme. In many instances, the survival of a special classification depends upon its creaior and, with the passage of time, this becomes inevitably more precarious.

0.0015879505 = product of:
  0.011115653 = sum of:
    0.011115653 = product of:
      0.055578265 = sum of:
        0.055578265 = weight(_text_:system in 181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055578265 = score(doc=181,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.4871716 = fieldWeight in 181, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=181)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

0.0014021716 = product of:
  0.0098152 = sum of:
    0.0098152 = product of:
      0.0196304 = sum of:
        0.0196304 = weight(_text_:22 in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0196304 = score(doc=2346,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2346, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2346)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

7.11.2008 15:22:04

0.001306939 = product of:
  0.009148573 = sum of:
    0.009148573 = product of:
      0.022871431 = sum of:
        0.012946742 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012946742 = score(doc=3262,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.11816074 = fieldWeight in 3262, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3262)
        0.00992469 = weight(_text_:system in 3262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00992469 = score(doc=3262,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.08699492 = fieldWeight in 3262, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3262)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Footnote

Several of the papers are clearly written as primers and neatly address the second agenda item: attracting others to the study and use of facet analysis. The most valuable papers are written in clear, approachable language. Vickery's paper (p. 145-160) is a clarion call for faceted classification and facet analysis. The heart of the paper is a primer for central concepts and techniques. Vickery explains the value of using faceted classification in document retrieval. Also provided are potential solutions to thorny interface and display issues with facets. Vickery looks to complementary themes in knowledge organization, such as thesauri and ontologies as potential areas for extending the facet concept. Broughton (p. 193-210) describes a rigorous approach to the application of facet analysis in the creation of a compatible thesaurus from the schedules of the 2nd edition of the Bliss Classification (BC2). This discussion of exemplary faceted thesauri, recent standards work, and difficulties encountered in the project will provide valuable guidance for future research in this area. Slavic (p. 257-271) provides a challenge to make faceted classification come 'alive' through promoting the use of machine-readable formats for use and exchange in applications such as Topic Maps and SKOS (Simple Knowledge Organization Systems), and as supported by the standard BS8723 (2005) Structured Vocabulary for Information Retrieval. She also urges designers of faceted classifications to get involved in standards work. Cheti and Paradisi (p. 223-241) outline a basic approach to converting an existing subject indexing tool, the Nuovo Soggetario, into a faceted thesaurus through the use of facet analysis. This discussion, well grounded in the canonical literature, may well serve as a primer for future efforts. Also useful for those who wish to construct faceted thesauri is the article by Tudhope and Binding (p. 211-222). This contains an outline of basic elements to be found in exemplar faceted thesauri, and a discussion of project FACET (Faceted Access to Cultural heritage Terminology) with algorithmically-based semantic query expansion in a dataset composed of items from the National Museum of Science and Industry indexed with AAT (Art and Architecture Thesaurus). This paper looks to the future hybridization of ontologies and facets through standards developments such as SKOS because of the "lightweight semantics" inherent in facets.
Two of the papers revisit the interaction of facets with the theory of integrative levels, which posits that the organization of the natural world reflects increasingly interdependent complexity. This approach was tested as a basis for the creation of faceted classifications in the 1960s. These contemporary treatments of integrative levels are not discipline-driven as were the early approaches, but instead are ontological and phenomenological in focus. Dahlberg (p. 161-172) outlines the creation of the ICC (Information Coding System) and the application of the Systematifier in the generation of facets and the creation of a fully faceted classification. Gnoli (p. 177-192) proposes the use of fundamental categories as a way to redefine facets and fundamental categories in "more universal and level-independent ways" (p. 192). Given that Axiomathes has a stated focus on "contemporary issues in cognition and ontology" and the following thesis: "that real advances in contemporary science may depend upon a consideration of the origins and intellectual history of ideas at the forefront of current research," this venue seems well suited for the implementation of the stated agenda, to illustrate complementary approaches and to stimulate research. As situated, this special issue may well serve as a bridge to a more interdisciplinary dialogue about facet analysis than has previously been the case."

0.0012832579 = product of:
  0.008982805 = sum of:
    0.008982805 = product of:
      0.044914022 = sum of:
        0.044914022 = weight(_text_:system in 2493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044914022 = score(doc=2493,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = queryNorm
            0.3936941 = fieldWeight in 2493, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2493)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The question of whether biologists should continue to use the Linnaean hierarchy has been a hotly debated issue. Ereshefsky argues that biologists should abandon the Linnaean system and adopt an alternative that is in line with evolutionary theory. He then makes specific recommendations for a post-Linnaean method of classification.

Footnote

Rez. in: KO 35(2008) no.4, S.255-259 (B. Hjoerland): "This book was published in 2000 simultaneously in hardback and as an electronic resource, and, in 2007, as a paperback. The author is a professor of philosophy at the University of Calgary, Canada. He has an impressive list of contributions, mostly addressing issues in biological taxonomy such as units of evolution, natural kinds and the species concept. The book is a scholarly criticism of the famous classification system developed by the Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778). This system consists of both a set of rules for the naming of living organisms (biological nomenclature) and principles of classification. Linné's system has been used and adapted by biologists over a period of almost 250 years. Under the current system of codes, it is now applied to more than two million species of organisms. Inherent in the Linnaean system is the indication of hierarchic relationships. The Linnaean system has been justified primarily on the basis of stability. Although it has been criticized and alternatives have been suggested, it still has its advocates (e.g., Schuh, 2003). One of the alternatives being developed is The International Code of Phylogenetic Nomenclature, known as the PhyloCode for short, a system that radically alters the current nomenclatural rules. The new proposals have provoked hot debate on nomenclatural issues in biology. . . ."

0.0011837021 = product of:
  0.008285915 = sum of:
    0.008285915 = product of:
      0.04142957 = sum of:
        0.04142957 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04142957 = score(doc=5478,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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"

0.0011837021 = product of:
  0.008285915 = sum of:
    0.008285915 = product of:
      0.04142957 = sum of:
        0.04142957 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04142957 = score(doc=766,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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.

0.0011697485 = product of:
  0.008188239 = sum of:
    0.008188239 = product of:
      0.040941194 = sum of:
        0.040941194 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040941194 = score(doc=2874,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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.

0.0010873 = product of:
  0.0076110996 = sum of:
    0.0076110996 = product of:
      0.0380555 = sum of:
        0.0380555 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 831) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0380555 = score(doc=831,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03622214 = 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)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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