Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

0.00853315 = product of:
  0.063998625 = sum of:
    0.019319436 = product of:
      0.03863887 = sum of:
        0.03863887 = weight(_text_:online in 109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03863887 = score(doc=109,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.096027054 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.40237486 = fieldWeight in 109, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=109)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.044679187 = weight(_text_:web in 109) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044679187 = score(doc=109,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.43268442 = fieldWeight in 109, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=109)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)

0.0066236192 = product of:
  0.04967714 = sum of:
    0.008049765 = product of:
      0.01609953 = sum of:
        0.01609953 = weight(_text_:online in 12) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01609953 = score(doc=12,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.096027054 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 12, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=12)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.041627377 = weight(_text_:web in 12) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041627377 = score(doc=12,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.40312994 = fieldWeight in 12, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=12)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)

Abstract

The vision of the semantic web is gradually unfolding and taking shape through a web of linked data, a part of which is built by capturing semantics stored in existing knowledge organization systems (KOS), subject metadata and resource metadata. The content of vast bibliographic collections is currently categorized by some widely used bibliographic classification and we may soon see them being mined for information and linked in a meaningful way across the web. Bibliographic classifications are designed for knowledge mediation, which offers both a rich terminology and different ways in which concepts can be categorized and related to each other in the universe of knowledge. From 1990 to 2010 they have been used in various resource discovery services on the web, and they continue to be used to support information integration in a number of international digital library projects. In this chapter we will revisit some of the ways in which universal classifications, as language-independent concept schemes, can assist humans and computers in structuring and presenting information and formulating queries. Most importantly, we will highlight issues important to understanding bibliographic classifications, identifying both their unused potential and their technical limitations.

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

0.003536217 = product of:
  0.026521625 = sum of:
    0.013660905 = product of:
      0.02732181 = sum of:
        0.02732181 = weight(_text_:online in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02732181 = score(doc=780,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.096027054 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.284522 = fieldWeight in 780, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=780)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.01286072 = product of:
      0.02572144 = sum of:
        0.02572144 = weight(_text_:22 in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02572144 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.110801086 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = 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)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)

Abstract

Networked orientated standards for vocabulary publishing and exchange and proposals for terminological services and terminology registries will improve sharing and use of all knowledge organization systems in the networked information environment. This means that documentary classifications may also become more applicable for use outside their original domain of application. The paper summarises some characteristics common to documentary classifications and explains some terminological, functional and implementation aspects. The original purpose behind each classification scheme determines the functions that the vocabulary is designed to facilitate. These functions influence the structure, semantics and syntax, scheme coverage and format in which classification data are published and made available. The author suggests that attention should be paid to the differences between documentary classifications as these may determine their suitability for a certain purpose and may impose different requirements with respect to their use online. As we speak, many classifications are being created for knowledge organization and it may be important to promote expertise from the bibliographic domain with respect to building and using classification systems.

Date

22.12.2007 17:22:31

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

0.0022873797 = product of:
  0.034310695 = sum of:
    0.034310695 = product of:
      0.06862139 = sum of:
        0.06862139 = weight(_text_:analyse in 1801) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06862139 = score(doc=1801,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16670908 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.4116236 = fieldWeight in 1801, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.268782 = idf(docFreq=618, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1801)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Subject access to bibliographic data supported by knowledge organization systems, such as subject headings and classification, plays an important role in ensuring the quality of library catalogues. It is generally acknowledged that users have a strong affinity to subject browsing and searching and are inclined tofollow meaningful links between resources. Research studies, however, show that library OPACs are not designed to support or make good use of subject indexes and their underlying semantic structure. A project entitled OPAC semantici was initiated in 2003 by a number of Italian subject specialists and the Italian "Research Group on Subject Indexing" (GRIS) with a goal to analyse and evaluate subject access in Italian library catalogues through a survey of 150 OPACs. Applying the same methodology, a follow-up survey to assess whether any improvement had taken place was conducted five years later, in spring 2008. Analysis of these two surveys indicated that there was a slight improvement. The authors discuss the results of these two surveys, analyse the problems in subject searching in OPACs and explain the recommendations for subject searching enhancement put forward by GRIS. Using the example of Italian OPACs, the authors will attempt to outline some requirements for a subject searching interface and explain how this can be achieved through authority control.

0.0014893063 = product of:
  0.022339594 = sum of:
    0.022339594 = weight(_text_:web in 2632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022339594 = score(doc=2632,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 2632, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2632)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

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.

0.001062515 = product of:
  0.015937723 = sum of:
    0.015937723 = product of:
      0.031875446 = sum of:
        0.031875446 = weight(_text_:online in 3229) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031875446 = score(doc=3229,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.096027054 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.33194235 = fieldWeight in 3229, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3229)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Footnote

Übers. d. Titels: Online library classification: translation of notation into natural language

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

9.10727E-4 = product of:
  0.013660905 = sum of:
    0.013660905 = product of:
      0.02732181 = sum of:
        0.02732181 = weight(_text_:online in 3254) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02732181 = score(doc=3254,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.096027054 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.284522 = fieldWeight in 3254, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3254)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

The paper discusses issues related to the use of faceted classifications in an online environment. The author argues that knowledge organization systems can be fully utilized in information retrieval only if they are exposed and made available for machine processing. The experience with classification automation to date may be used to speed up and ease the conversion of existing faceted schemes or the creation of management tools for new systems. The author suggests that it is possible to agree on a set of functional requirements for supporting faceted classifications online that are equally relevant for the maintenance of classifications, the creation of classification indexing tools, or the management of classifications in an authority file. It is suggested that a set of requirements for analytico-synthetic classifications may be put forward to improve standards for the use and exchange of knowledge organization systems.

8.573814E-4 = product of:
  0.01286072 = sum of:
    0.01286072 = product of:
      0.02572144 = sum of:
        0.02572144 = weight(_text_:22 in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02572144 = score(doc=1428,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.110801086 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1428, 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=1428)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

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

7.4360555E-4 = product of:
  0.011154083 = sum of:
    0.011154083 = product of:
      0.022308165 = sum of:
        0.022308165 = weight(_text_:online in 2875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022308165 = score(doc=2875,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.096027054 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.23231125 = fieldWeight in 2875, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2875)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

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

6.439812E-4 = product of:
  0.009659718 = sum of:
    0.009659718 = product of:
      0.019319436 = sum of:
        0.019319436 = weight(_text_:online in 2131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019319436 = score(doc=2131,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.096027054 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.20118743 = fieldWeight in 2131, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2131)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

6.439812E-4 = product of:
  0.009659718 = sum of:
    0.009659718 = product of:
      0.019319436 = sum of:
        0.019319436 = weight(_text_:online in 2651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019319436 = score(doc=2651,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.096027054 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.20118743 = fieldWeight in 2651, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2651)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

5.36651E-4 = product of:
  0.008049765 = sum of:
    0.008049765 = product of:
      0.01609953 = sum of:
        0.01609953 = weight(_text_:online in 4879) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01609953 = score(doc=4879,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.096027054 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 4879, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4879)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

5.36651E-4 = product of:
  0.008049765 = sum of:
    0.008049765 = product of:
      0.01609953 = sum of:
        0.01609953 = weight(_text_:online in 3848) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01609953 = score(doc=3848,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.096027054 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 3848, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3848)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

The paper will look into different patterns of facet analysis used in the UDC schedules and how these affect the scheme presentation, the underlying data structure and the management of the classification scheme. From the very beginning, UDC was designed to represent the universe of knowledge as an integral whole allowing for subjects/concepts from all fields of knowledge to be combined, linked and the nature of their relationships made explicit. In Otlet's original design, the emphasis for his new type of classification was on the coordination of classmarks at the point of searching, i.e., post-coordination, which he firmly rooted in an expressive notational system. While some UDC classes exhibit various patterns of facet analytical theory proper, others, although used in an analytico-synthetic fashion, follow less canonical structural patterns. The authors highlight the lack of connection made throughout the various stages of UDC restructuring between: a) theoretical requirements of an overarching facet analytical theory as a founding principle guiding the construction of schedules; and, b) practical requirements for an analytico-synthetic classification in terms of notational presentation and data structure that enables its use in indexing and retrieval, as well as its management online.