Search (33 results, page 1 of 2)

0.08515047 = product of:
  0.14191745 = sum of:
    0.098406665 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 2550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.098406665 = score(doc=2550,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23055021 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.426834 = fieldWeight in 2550, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2550)
    0.023701325 = weight(_text_:of in 2550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023701325 = score(doc=2550,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 2550, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2550)
    0.019809462 = product of:
      0.039618924 = sum of:
        0.039618924 = weight(_text_:22 in 2550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039618924 = score(doc=2550,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2550, 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=2550)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

The paper takes a retrospective look at the work of Henry Evelyn Bliss, classificationist theorist and author of the Bibliographic Classification. Major features of his writings and philosophy are examined and evaluated for the originality of their contribution to the corpus of knowledge in the discipline. Reactions to Bliss's work are analysed, as is his influence on classification theory of the 20th century. Contemporary work on knowledge organization is seen to continue a number of strands from Bliss's original writings. His standing as a classificationist is compared with that of Ranganathan, with the conclusion that he is not given the credit he deserves.

Date

9. 2.1997 18:44:22

Source

Journal of librarianship and information science. 40(2008) no.1, S.45-58

0.042305164 = product of:
  0.10576291 = sum of:
    0.084348574 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 5994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.084348574 = score(doc=5994,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.23055021 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.36585772 = fieldWeight in 5994, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5994)
    0.021414334 = weight(_text_:of in 5994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021414334 = score(doc=5994,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 5994, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5994)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

We examine the way in which religion is managed in the major library classification schemes and in archival practice and how and why bias and misrepresentation occur. Broad definitions of what is meant by diversity and religious pluralism and why it is a cause for concern precede a discussion of the standard model of interreligious attitudes (exclusivism/inclusivism/pluralism) with particular reference to the philosophy of John Hick. This model is used as a lens through which to evaluate knowledge organization systems (KOSs) for evidence of comparable theoretical positions and to suggest a possible typology of religious KOSs. Archival and library practice are considered, and, despite their very different approaches, found to have some similarities in the way in which traditional societal structures have affected bias and misrepresentation of religious beliefs. There is, nevertheless, evidence of a general move towards a more pluralistic attitude to different faiths.

0.015357548 = product of:
  0.03839387 = sum of:
    0.021414334 = weight(_text_:of in 6392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021414334 = score(doc=6392,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 6392, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6392)
    0.016979538 = product of:
      0.033959076 = sum of:
        0.033959076 = weight(_text_:22 in 6392) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033959076 = score(doc=6392,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 6392, 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=6392)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The ways in which notation can be used to express the content of documents to which it relates are various. At the most superficial level notation can correspond to the hierarchical structure of the schedules or link to literal components. The notation of compound concepts can express the structure and composition of the compound, and systems exist in which symbols denote the functional roles of the constituent elements and the relationships between them. At the highest level notation can be used to mirror the actual structure of those entities which it represents, as in the case of mathematical systems or chemical compounds. Methods of displaying these structures are examined, and the practicality in a documentary context is questioned, with particular reference to recent revision work on the chemistry class of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification 2nd edition (BC2)

Date

10. 8.2001 13:22:14

0.012842399 = product of:
  0.032105997 = sum of:
    0.0117592495 = product of:
      0.058796246 = sum of:
        0.058796246 = weight(_text_:problem in 5728) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058796246 = score(doc=5728,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.33160037 = fieldWeight in 5728, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5728)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.02034675 = weight(_text_:of in 5728) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02034675 = score(doc=5728,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 5728, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5728)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The paper traces the development of the discussion around ethical issues in artificial intelligence, and considers the way in which humans have affected the knowledge bases used in machine learning. The phenomenon of bias or discrimination in machine ethics is seen as inherited from humans, either through the use of biased data or through the semantics inherent in intellectually- built tools sourced by intelligent agents. The kind of biases observed in AI are compared with those identified in the field of knowledge organization, using religious adherents as an example of a community potentially marginalized by bias. A practical demonstration is given of apparent religious prejudice inherited from source material in a large database deployed widely in computational linguistics and automatic indexing. Methods to address the problem of bias are discussed, including the modelling of the moral process on neuroscientific understanding of brain function. The question is posed whether it is possible to model religious belief in a similar way, so that robots of the future may have both an ethical and a religious sense and themselves address the problem of prejudice.

0.012216291 = product of:
  0.030540727 = sum of:
    0.0066520358 = product of:
      0.033260178 = sum of:
        0.033260178 = weight(_text_:problem in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.033260178 = score(doc=6089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.1875815 = fieldWeight in 6089, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6089)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.023888692 = weight(_text_:of in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023888692 = score(doc=6089,freq=56.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.36569026 = fieldWeight in 6089, product of:
          7.483315 = tf(freq=56.0), with freq of:
            56.0 = termFreq=56.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6089)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The genesis of the Group: In 1948, as part of the post-war renewal of library services in the United Kingdom, the Royal Society organized a Conference on Scientific Information.' What, at the time, must have seemed a minute part of the grand plan, but was later to have a transforming effect on the theory of knowledge organization throughout the remainder of the century, was the setting up of a standing committee of a small group of specialists to investigate the organization and retrieval of scientific information. In 1950, the secretary of that committee, J.D. Bernal, suggested that it might be appropriate to ask a group of librarians to do a study of the problem. After a couple of years of informal discussion it was agreed, in February 1952, to form a Classification Research Group - the CRG as it has become known to subsequent generations. The Group published a brief corporate statement of its views in the Library Association Record in June 1953 and submitted a memorandum to the Library Association Research Committee in May 1955, entitled "The need for a faceted classification as the basis of all methods of information retrieval". This memorandum was published in the proceedings of what has become known as the "Dorking Conference" in 1957. Of the original fifteen members, four still belong to the Group, three of whom are in regular attendance: Eric Coates, Douglas Foskett and Jack Mills. Brian Vickery ceased attending regularly in the 1960s but has retained his interest in their doings: he was present at the 150th celebratory meeting in 1984 and played an active part in the "Dorking revisited" conference held in 1997. The stated aim of the Group was 'To review the basic principles of bibliographic classification, unhampered by allegiance to any particular published scheme' and it can truly be stated that the work of its members has had a fundamental influence on the teaching and practice of information retrieval. It is paradoxical that this collection of people has exerted such a strong theoretical sway because their aims were from the outset and remain essentially practical. This fact is sometimes overlooked in the literature on knowledge organization: there is a tendency to get carried away, and for researchers of today to concentrate so hard on what might be that they overlook what is needed, useful and practical - the entire objective of any retrieval system.

0.011145428 = product of:
  0.02786357 = sum of:
    0.008315044 = product of:
      0.041575223 = sum of:
        0.041575223 = weight(_text_:problem in 96) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041575223 = score(doc=96,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.23447686 = fieldWeight in 96, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=96)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    0.019548526 = weight(_text_:of in 96) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019548526 = score(doc=96,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 96, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=96)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The paper looks at ways in which traditional classification and indexing tools have dealt with the relationships between constituent terms; variations in these are examined and compared with the methods used in machine searching, particularly of the Internet and World Wide Web. Apparent correspondences with features of index languages are identified, and further methods of applying classification and indexing theory to machine retrieval are proposed. There are various ways in which indexing and retrieval systems, both conventional and electronic, deal with the problem of searching for documents on a subject basis, and various approaches to the analysis and processing of a query. There appear to be three basic models; the taxonomic or structural system, in which the user is offered a map of the `universe of knowledge'; the language based system, which offers a vocabulary of the subject and a grammar for dealing with compound statements; and the mathematical model using the language of symbolic logic or the algebra of set theory

Source

Dynamism and stability in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the 6th International ISKO-Conference, 10-13 July 2000, Toronto, Canada. Ed.: C. Beghtol et al

0.006791815 = product of:
  0.033959076 = sum of:
    0.033959076 = product of:
      0.06791815 = sum of:
        0.06791815 = weight(_text_:22 in 6048) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06791815 = score(doc=6048,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6048, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6048)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 9.2007 15:41:14

0.0050474075 = product of:
  0.025237037 = sum of:
    0.025237037 = weight(_text_:of in 3940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025237037 = score(doc=3940,freq=40.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.38633084 = fieldWeight in 3940, product of:
          6.3245554 = tf(freq=40.0), with freq of:
            40.0 = termFreq=40.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3940)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this editorial is to introduce the selected Proceedings of the 1st National Conference of ISKO UK, the UK Chapter of the International Society for Knowledge Organization. It aims to provide some background for the group, and place it within the context of the recent history of information organization and retrieval in subject domains. Design/methodology/approach - The paper introduces a selection of papers delivered at the 1st National Conference of the UK Chapter of the International Society for Knowledge Organization. Findings - The field of knowledge organization is lively and progressive, and researchers and practitioners in many sectors are actively engaged with it, despite its apparent decline in LIS education. New communities of interest may use different terms to describe this work, but there is much common ground, and a growing convergence of ideas and methods. Originality/value - The value of existing theory is now more widely recognised, and the importance of structured knowledge organization systems and vocabularies in retrieval is generally acknowledged. It is to be hoped that these important areas of information practice and research will soon be restored to their former place in professional education.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Special Issue: Content architecture: exploiting and managing diverse resources: proceedings of the first national conference of the United Kingdom chapter of the International Society for Knowedge Organization (ISKO)

0.004788391 = product of:
  0.023941955 = sum of:
    0.023941955 = weight(_text_:of in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023941955 = score(doc=2874,freq=36.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.36650562 = fieldWeight in 2874, product of:
          6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
            36.0 = termFreq=36.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2874)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.004788391 = product of:
  0.023941955 = sum of:
    0.023941955 = weight(_text_:of in 593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023941955 = score(doc=593,freq=36.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.36650562 = fieldWeight in 593, product of:
          6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
            36.0 = termFreq=36.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=593)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to identify the most important factors and features in the evolution of thesauri and ontologies through a dialectic model. This model relies on a dialectic process or idea which could be discovered via a dialectic method. This method has focused on identifying the logical relationship between a beginning proposition, or an idea called a thesis, a negation of that idea called the antithesis, and the result of the conflict between the two ideas, called a synthesis. During the creation of knowl­edge organization systems (KOSs), the identification of logical relations between different ideas has been made possible through the consideration and use of the most influential methods and tools such as dictionaries, Roget's Thesaurus, thesaurus, micro-, macro- and metathesauri, ontology, lower, middle and upper level ontologies. The analysis process has adapted a historical methodology, more specifically a dialectic method and documentary method as the reasoning process. This supports our arguments and synthesizes a method for the analysis of research results. Confirmed by the research results, the principle of unity has shown to be the most important factor in the development and evolution of the structure of knowl­edge organization systems and their types. There are various types of unity when considering the analysis of logical relations. These include the principle of unity of alphabetical order, unity of science, semantic unity, structural unity and conceptual unity. The results have clearly demonstrated a movement from plurality to unity in the assembling of the complex structure of knowl­edge organization systems to increase information and knowl­edge storage and retrieval performance.

0.0047777384 = product of:
  0.023888692 = sum of:
    0.023888692 = weight(_text_:of in 1788) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023888692 = score(doc=1788,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.36569026 = fieldWeight in 1788, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1788)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The article reviews the life and work of Brian Campbell Vickery, one of the major figures of British classification and information retrieval, and a scholar of international reputation. His career as librarian, researcher, and academic is described, as is the part he played in the development of information science theory in the twentieth century. Some of his most significant publications are listed, with reference to the scale and breadth of his published work overall.

0.004691646 = product of:
  0.02345823 = sum of:
    0.02345823 = weight(_text_:of in 6367) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02345823 = score(doc=6367,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 6367, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6367)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.004691646 = product of:
  0.02345823 = sum of:
    0.02345823 = weight(_text_:of in 5992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02345823 = score(doc=5992,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 5992, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5992)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The paper examines the development of facet analysis as a methodology and the role it plays in building classifications and other knowledge-organization tools. The use of categorical analysis in areas other than library and information science is also considered. The suitability of the faceted approach for humanities documentation is explored through a critical description of the FATKS (Facet Analytical Theory in Managing Knowledge Structure for Humanities) project carried out at University College London. This research focused on building a conceptual model for the subject of religion together with a relational database and search-and-browse interfaces that would support some degree of automatic classification. The paper concludes with a discussion of the differences between the conceptual model and the vocabulary used to populate it, and how, in the case of religion, the choice of terminology can create an apparent bias in the system.

Source

¬The Indexer: the international journal of indexing. 38(2020) no.3, S.247-270

0.0045145387 = product of:
  0.022572692 = sum of:
    0.022572692 = weight(_text_:of in 4826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022572692 = score(doc=4826,freq=32.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 4826, product of:
          5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
            32.0 = termFreq=32.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4826)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Facet analysis is proposed as a general theory of knowledge organization, with an associated methodology that may be applied to the development of terminology tools in a variety of contexts and formats. Faceted classifications originated as a means of representing complexity in semantic content that facilitates logical organization and effective retrieval in a physical environment. This is achieved through meticulous analysis of concepts, their structural and functional status (based on fundamental categories), and their inter-relationships. These features provide an excellent basis for the general conceptual modelling of domains, and for the generation of KOS other than systematic classifications. This is demonstrated by the adoption of a faceted approach to many web search and visualization tools, and by the emergence of a facet based methodology for the construction of thesauri. Current work on the Bliss Bibliographic Classification (Second Edition) is investigating the ways in which the full complexity of faceted structures may be represented through encoded data, capable of generating intellectually and mechanically compatible forms of indexing tools from a single source. It is suggested that a number of research questions relating to the Semantic Web could be tackled through the medium of facet analysis.

Source

Classification and ontology: formal approaches and access to knowledge: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar, 19-20 September 2011, The Hague, The Netherlands. Eds.: A. Slavic u. E. Civallero

0.004423326 = product of:
  0.02211663 = sum of:
    0.02211663 = weight(_text_:of in 3755) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02211663 = score(doc=3755,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 3755, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3755)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This entry looks at the origins of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification 2nd edition and the theory on which it is built. The reasons for the decision to revise the classification are examined, as are the influences on classification theory of the mid-twentieth century. The process of revision and construction of schedules using facet analysis is described. The use of BC2 is considered along with some recent development work on thesaural and digital formats.

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates

0.0041805212 = product of:
  0.020902606 = sum of:
    0.020902606 = weight(_text_:of in 1164) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020902606 = score(doc=1164,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 1164, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1164)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Facets are widely encountered in information and knowledge organization, but there is much disparity in the use and understanding of concepts such as "facet," "facet analysis," and "faceted classification." The paper traces the history of these ideas and how they have been employed in different contexts. What may be termed the classical school of faceted classification is given some prominence, through the ideas of Ranganathan and the Classification Research Group, but other interpretations are also explored. Attention is paid not only to the idea of what facet analysis is, and what purpose it serves, but also the language utilized to describe and explain it.

Footnote

Beitrag in Themenheft: Implementation of Faceted Vocabularies.

0.00406935 = product of:
  0.02034675 = sum of:
    0.02034675 = weight(_text_:of in 2476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02034675 = score(doc=2476,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 2476, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2476)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Basic skills of classification and subject indexing have been little taught in British library schools since automation was introduced into libraries. However, development of the Internet as a major medium of publication has stretched the capability of search engines to cope with retrieval. Consequently, there has been interest in applying existing systems of knowledge organization to electronic resources. Unfortunately, the classification systems have been adopted without a full understanding of modern classification principles. Analytico-synthetic schemes have been used crudely, as in the case of the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC). The fully faceted Bliss Bibliographical Classification, 2nd edition (BC2) with its potential as a tool for electronic resource retrieval is virtually unknown outside academic libraries

Content

A short discussion of using classification systems to organize the web, one of many such. The authors are both involved with BC2 and naturally think it is the best system for organizing information online. They list reasons why faceted classifications are best (e.g. no theoretical limits to specificity or exhaustivity; easier to handle complex subjects; flexible enough to accommodate different user needs) and take a brief look at how BC2 works. They conclude with a discussion of how and why it should be applied to online resources, and a plea for recognition of the importance of classification and subject analysis skills, even when full-text searching is available and databases respond instantly.

Source

Journal of Internet cataloging. 2(2000) nos.3/4, S.143-155

0.00406935 = product of:
  0.02034675 = sum of:
    0.02034675 = weight(_text_:of in 2633) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02034675 = score(doc=2633,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 2633, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2633)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This paper examines the differences in the functional requirements of a faceted classification system when used in a conventional print-based environment (where the emphasis is on the browse function of the classification) as compared to its application to digital collections (where the retrieval function is paramount). The use of the second edition of Bliss's Bibliographic Classification (BC2) as a general classification for the physical organization of undergraduate collections in the University of Cambridge is described. The development of an online tool for indexing of digital resources using the Bliss terminologies is also described, and the advantages of facet analysis for data structuring and system syntax within the prototype tool are discussed. The move from the print-based environment to the digital makes different demands an both the content and the syntax of the classification, and while the conceptual structure remains similar, manipulation of the scheme and the process of content description can be markedly different.

Source

Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine

0.0040630843 = product of:
  0.02031542 = sum of:
    0.02031542 = weight(_text_:of in 2631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02031542 = score(doc=2631,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 2631, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2631)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The paper examines the way in which classification schemes can be applied to the organization of digital resources. The case is argued for the particular suitability of schemes based an faceted principles for the organization of complex digital objects. Details are given of a co-operative project between the School of Library Archive & Information Studies, University College London, and the United Kingdom Higher Education gateways Arts and Humanities Data Service and Humbul, in which a faceted knowledge structure is being developed for the indexing and display of digital materials within a new combined humanities portal.

Source

Challenges in knowledge representation and organization for the 21st century: Integration of knowledge across boundaries. Proceedings of the 7th ISKO International Conference Granada, Spain, July 10-13, 2002. Ed.: M. López-Huertas

0.0040630843 = product of:
  0.02031542 = sum of:
    0.02031542 = weight(_text_:of in 1857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02031542 = score(doc=1857,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04177434 = queryNorm
        0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 1857, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1857)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Facet analysis is an established methodology for building classifications and subject indexing systems, but has been less rigorously applied to thesauri. The process of creating a compatible thesaurus from the schedules of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification 2nd edition highlights the ways in which the conceptual relationships in a subject field are handled in the two types of retrieval languages. An underlying uniformity of theory is established, and the way in which software can manage the relationships is discussed. The manner of displaying verbal expressions of concepts (vocabulary control) is also considered, but is found to be less well controlled in the classification than in the thesaurus. Nevertheless, there is good reason to think that facet analysis provides a sound basis for structuring a variety of knowledge organization tools.