Search (28 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × language_ss:"e"
  • × author_ss:"Dahlberg, I."
  1. Dahlberg, I.: Historical paradigms in the philosophy of classification (1994) 0.09
    0.087663665 = product of:
      0.21915916 = sum of:
        0.19681333 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 8899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19681333 = score(doc=8899,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23055021 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.853668 = fieldWeight in 8899, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8899)
        0.022345824 = weight(_text_:of in 8899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022345824 = score(doc=8899,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 8899, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8899)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Source
    The economics of information. ASIS'94. Proc. 57th ASIS Annual Meeting, Alexandria, VA, Oct. 17-20, 1994. Ed.: B. Maxian
  2. Dahlberg, I.: ¬The basis of a new universal classification system seen from a philosophy of science point of view (1992) 0.06
    0.05669858 = product of:
      0.14174645 = sum of:
        0.119286895 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 2100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.119286895 = score(doc=2100,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23055021 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.5174009 = fieldWeight in 2100, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2100)
        0.022459546 = weight(_text_:of in 2100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022459546 = score(doc=2100,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 2100, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2100)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    The implications of contributions from philosophy of science to classification theory and the construction of a new universal classification system are discussed. Starting from the purposes of universal systems and what has been considered so far to serve as main classes of the six existing major universal systems, the following theories have been treated: Theory of (1) knowledge, (2) knowledge elements and units, (3) systems, (4) the science concept, (5) knowledge fields including criteria for their identification, (6) a logical syntax, (7) an overall structure of object and aspect areas. Concludingly an evaluation was made with special regard to the representability (notation) of such a theory-based universal concept system by computer and in telecommunication. This, as well as the heuristics contained in such a theory-based system facilitate its general applicability
  3. Dahlberg, I.: International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO) (2009) 0.04
    0.03656212 = product of:
      0.091405295 = sum of:
        0.070290476 = weight(_text_:philosophy in 4693) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.070290476 = score(doc=4693,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23055021 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.30488142 = fieldWeight in 4693, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.5189433 = idf(docFreq=481, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4693)
        0.02111482 = weight(_text_:of in 4693) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02111482 = score(doc=4693,freq=28.0), product of:
            0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.32322758 = fieldWeight in 4693, product of:
              5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
                28.0 = termFreq=28.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4693)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    The aims, tasks, activities, and achievements of the International Society for Knowledge Organization (1989-) are presented. ISKO is that group of scholars and practitioners who feel responsible for questions pertaining to the conceptual organization and processing of knowledge, the scientific bases of which lie in knowledge drawn from the fields of logic, organization science, psychology, science theory, informatics, semiotics, linguistics, and philosophy. It aims at giving advice in the construction, perfection, and application of such organizational tools as classification systems, taxonomies, thesauri, terminologies, as well as their use for indexing purposes and thereby for the retrieval of information. Events leading up to the founding of ISKO in 1989 are described. The aims and objectives of ISKO according to its statutes are mentioned, as well as its organization, its biennial international conferences with their proceedings volumes, and the establishment of a further conference series and a textbook series. The drive and success of coordinators in establishing chapters in many countries is reviewed as well. The activities of the chapters (mainly by their own meetings and conferences) and subsequently their publications during the past years are also included. The idea and structure of ISKO's official journal-Knowledge Organization-is explained, and ISKO's Web site is given. Finally, the need for the Society is discussed, and its possible future is considered.
    Source
    Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed. M.J. Bates
  4. Dahlberg, I.: DIN 32705: the German standard on classification systems : a critical appraisal (1992) 0.03
    0.029702766 = product of:
      0.07425691 = sum of:
        0.02031542 = weight(_text_:of in 2669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02031542 = score(doc=2669,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 2669, 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=2669)
        0.053941496 = product of:
          0.10788299 = sum of:
            0.10788299 = weight(_text_:mind in 2669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.10788299 = score(doc=2669,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.2607373 = queryWeight, product of:
                  6.241566 = idf(docFreq=233, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04177434 = queryNorm
                0.41376126 = fieldWeight in 2669, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  6.241566 = idf(docFreq=233, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2669)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    The German standard on the construction and further development of classification systems is introduced with its background. The contents of its 8 chapters is described. A critical appraisal considers (1) the fact that the standard does not openly deal with the optimal form of CS, viz. faceted CS, but treats them as one possibility among others, although the authors seem to have had this kind in mind when recommending the section on steps of CS development and other sections of the standard; (2) that the standard does not give any recommendation on the computerization of the necessary activities in establishing CS; and (3) that a convergence of CS and thesauri in the form of faceted CS and faceted thesauri has not been taken into consideration. - Concludingly some doubts are raised whether a standard would be the best medium to provide recommendations or guidelines for the construction of such systems. More adequate ways for this should be explored
  5. De Luca, E.W.; Dahlberg, I.: Including knowledge domains from the ICC into the multilingual lexical linked data cloud (2014) 0.01
    0.013051639 = product of:
      0.0326291 = sum of:
        0.012618518 = weight(_text_:of in 1493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012618518 = score(doc=1493,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.19316542 = fieldWeight in 1493, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1493)
        0.02001058 = product of:
          0.04002116 = sum of:
            0.04002116 = weight(_text_:22 in 1493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.04002116 = score(doc=1493,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04177434 = queryNorm
                0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1493, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1493)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    A lot of information that is already available on the Web, or retrieved from local information systems and social networks is structured in data silos that are not semantically related. Semantic technologies make it emerge that the use of typed links that directly express their relations are an advantage for every application that can reuse the incorporated knowledge about the data. For this reason, data integration, through reengineering (e.g. triplify), or querying (e.g. D2R) is an important task in order to make information available for everyone. Thus, in order to build a semantic map of the data, we need knowledge about data items itself and the relation between heterogeneous data items. In this paper, we present our work of providing Lexical Linked Data (LLD) through a meta-model that contains all the resources and gives the possibility to retrieve and navigate them from different perspectives. We combine the existing work done on knowledge domains (based on the Information Coding Classification) within the Multilingual Lexical Linked Data Cloud (based on the RDF/OWL EurowordNet and the related integrated lexical resources (MultiWordNet, EuroWordNet, MEMODATA Lexicon, Hamburg Methaphor DB).
    Date
    22. 9.2014 19:01:18
    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
  6. Dahlberg, I.: Conceptual definitions for INTERCONCEPT (1981) 0.01
    0.011319693 = product of:
      0.056598466 = sum of:
        0.056598466 = product of:
          0.11319693 = sum of:
            0.11319693 = weight(_text_:22 in 1630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.11319693 = score(doc=1630,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.14628662 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04177434 = queryNorm
                0.77380234 = fieldWeight in 1630, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=1630)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Source
    International classification. 8(1981), S.16-22
  7. Dahlberg, I.: ¬The future of classification in libraries and networks : a theoretical point of view (1995) 0.01
    0.010812533 = product of:
      0.027031332 = sum of:
        0.008315044 = product of:
          0.041575223 = sum of:
            0.041575223 = weight(_text_:problem in 5563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.041575223 = score(doc=5563,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17731056 = queryWeight, product of:
                  4.244485 = idf(docFreq=1723, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04177434 = queryNorm
                0.23447686 = fieldWeight in 5563, 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=5563)
          0.2 = coord(1/5)
        0.018716287 = weight(_text_:of in 5563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018716287 = score(doc=5563,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.28651062 = fieldWeight in 5563, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5563)
      0.4 = coord(2/5)
    
    Abstract
    Some time ago, some people said classification is dead, we don't need it any more. They probably thought that subject headings could do the job of the necessary subject analysis and shelving of books. However, all of a sudden in 1984 the attitude changed, when an OCLC study of Karen Markey started to show what could be done even with an "outdated system" such as the Dewey Decimal Classification in the computer, once it was visible on a screen to show the helpfulness of a classified library catalogue called an OPAC; classification was brought back into the minds of doubtful librarians and of all those who thought they would not need it any longer. But the problem once phrased: "We are stuck with the two old systems, LCC and DDC" would not find a solution and is still with us today. We know that our systems are outdated but we seem still to be unable to replace them with better ones. What then should one do and advise, knowing that we need something better? Perhaps a new universal ordering system which more adequately represents and mediates the world of our present day knowledge? If we were to develop it from scratch, how would we create it and implement it in such a way that it would be acceptable to the majority of the present intellectual world population?
  8. Dahlberg, I.: Principles for the construction of a universal classification system : a proposal (1978) 0.01
    0.0063203536 = product of:
      0.031601768 = sum of:
        0.031601768 = weight(_text_:of in 67) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031601768 = score(doc=67,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.48376274 = fieldWeight in 67, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=67)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Source
    Conceptual basis of the classification of knowledge. Proc. of the Ottawa Conf. ... 1.5.10.1971. Ed. by J.A. Wojciechowski
  9. Dahlberg, I.: Classification structure principles : Investigations, experiences, conclusions (1998) 0.01
    0.005417446 = product of:
      0.02708723 = sum of:
        0.02708723 = weight(_text_:of in 47) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02708723 = score(doc=47,freq=32.0), product of:
            0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.41465378 = fieldWeight in 47, product of:
              5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
                32.0 = termFreq=32.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=47)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    For the purpose of establishing compatibility between the major universal classification systems in use, their structure principles were investigated and crucial points of difficulty for this undertaking were looked for, in order to relate the guiding classes, e.g. of the DDC, UDC, LCC, BC, and CC, to the subject groups of the ICC. With the help of a matrix into whose fields all subject groups of the ICC were inserted, it was not difficult at all to enter the notations of the universal classification systems mentioned. However, differences in terms of level of subdivision were found, as well as differences of occurrences. Most, though not all, of the fields of the ICC matrix could be completely filled with the corresponding notations of the other systems. Through this matrix, a first table of some 81 equivalences was established on which further work regarding the next levels of subject fields can be based
    Source
    Structures and relations in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the 5th International ISKO-Conference, Lille, 25.-29.8.1998. Ed.: W. Mustafa el Hadi et al
  10. Dahlberg, I.: Knowledge organization : a new science? (2006) 0.00
    0.0049966783 = product of:
      0.024983391 = sum of:
        0.024983391 = weight(_text_:of in 3375) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024983391 = score(doc=3375,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.38244802 = fieldWeight in 3375, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3375)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    In ISKO's name, the term "Knowledge Organization" (KO) denotes already the object and the activity area significant for the existence of any science. Both areas are outlined and their specific contents shown. Also a survey of its special subfields is given. The sciencetheoretical foundation of Knowledge Organization as a new scientific discipline is based on the propositional concept of science. Within a universal system of the sciences, KO has been regarded as a subfield of Science of Science. Concludingly it is proposed to find the necessary institution for work in concerted effort of scientists, knowledge organizers and terminologists on the collection, definition, and systematization of concepts of all subject fields, utilizing the Information Coding Classification (ICC) as the necessary categorizing structure.
  11. Dahlberg, I.: ¬The terminology of subject-fields (1975) 0.00
    0.00488322 = product of:
      0.024416098 = sum of:
        0.024416098 = weight(_text_:of in 2103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024416098 = score(doc=2103,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.37376386 = fieldWeight in 2103, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2103)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    So far terminological work has been mainly directed towards defining very special concepts. The more general ones, e.g. those denoting subject-fields have been neglected with the result that communication on this level has been seriously hampered. There exists a great number of such terms and also a growing trend for the formation of new ones. In the FRG an R&D project was started in 1972 with the collection of names of subject fields, it is intended to assemble their definitions in a dictionary and to build a general concept system by computercomparison of their characteristics as provided by their definitions. The nature of subject-fields is explained, details on the German collection are given as well as some results from a formal analysis of their concepts. It is proposed to initiate similar projects in other linguistic regions as well; this could be done under the auspices of Infoterm. Some application-possibilities for a general concept-system (e. g. a broad system of ordering) are given. The annex displays a scheme of 9 subject areas and about 90 subareas for the sorting of names of subject fields
  12. Dahlberg, I.: Classification theory, yesterday and today (1976) 0.00
    0.0047777384 = product of:
      0.023888692 = sum of:
        0.023888692 = weight(_text_:of in 1618) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023888692 = score(doc=1618,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.36569026 = fieldWeight in 1618, 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=1618)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    Until very recently, classification theory was held to be nothing but an expressed or unconscious knowledge framed in intuitively given reasons for the subdivision and arrangement of any universe. Today, after clarification of the elements of classification systems as well as the basis of concept relationshios it is possible to apply a number of principles in the evaluation of existing systems as well as in the construction of new ones and by this achieving relatively predictable and repeatable results
  13. Dahlberg, I.: Knowledge organization : its scope and possibilities (1993) 0.00
    0.0047777384 = product of:
      0.023888692 = sum of:
        0.023888692 = weight(_text_:of in 6315) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023888692 = score(doc=6315,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.36569026 = fieldWeight in 6315, 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=6315)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    Sketch of historical development of knowledge organization and presentation of its scope as shown by the contents of the literature service, now called 'Knowledge Organization Literature'. The scheme is explained and shown on its three levels as well as its correlation to a universal classification system of knowledge fields, the 'Information Coding Classification'. The possibilities of Knowledge Organization as a help for everybody, especially also students and above all students of education, and a help for political, industrial and social leaders are discussed. 10 measures for consideration and activation are listed
  14. Dahlberg, I.: What is knowledge organization? (2014) 0.00
    0.004740265 = product of:
      0.023701325 = sum of:
        0.023701325 = weight(_text_:of in 1381) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023701325 = score(doc=1381,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 1381, 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=1381)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    As an introduction, the circumstances leading to the foundation of the International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO) are outlined and the prerequisites for the formal and conceptual description of the scope of knowledge organization (KO) are laid out, followed by the explanation of the scheme as used in the bibliography of KO. An overview is provided of the tasks and activities of this discipline; thereafter and in conclusion an urgent appeal is made to ISKO and to all active scientific societies with a view to establishing KO as an autonomous scientific discipline within the science of science, as well as an indication is given of urgently required tasks.
  15. Dahlberg, I.: ICC - Information Coding Classification : principles, structure and application possibilities (1982) 0.00
    0.004691646 = product of:
      0.02345823 = sum of:
        0.02345823 = weight(_text_:of in 1238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02345823 = score(doc=1238,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 1238, 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=1238)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    Presentation of the design, characteristics and application possibilities of a new universal classification system called ICC which is based on the premises that whenever information is to be generated or to be presented (in coded form) at least two items are necessary one of which plays the part of a subject and the other one that of the predicate of a sentence, with both these items being framed into a third one. The first basic division is by the categorial concepts denoting general entities and general aspects/determinations of being, framed into an evolutionary pattern of levels creating the 81 subject groups of ICC. Each of these subject groups is structured by a socalled systematifier, applying a recurring series of facets. The overall structure is explained and some of its application fields are outlined
  16. Dahlberg, I.: ¬The Information Coding Classification (ICC) : a modern, theory-based fully-faceted, universal system of knowledge fields (2008) 0.00
    0.0045145387 = product of:
      0.022572692 = sum of:
        0.022572692 = weight(_text_:of in 1854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022572692 = score(doc=1854,freq=32.0), product of:
            0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 1854, 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=1854)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    Introduction into the structure, contents and specifications (especially the Systematifier) of the Information Coding Classification, developed in the seventies and used in many ways by the author and a few others following its publication in 1982. Its theoretical basis is explained consisting in (1) the Integrative Level Theory, following an evolutionary approach of ontical areas, and integrating also on each level the aspects contained in the sequence of the levels, (2) the distinction between categories of form and categories of being, (3) the application of a feature of Systems Theory (namely the element position plan) and (4) the inclusion of a concept theory, distinguishing four kinds of relationships, originated by the kinds of characteristics (which are the elements of concepts to be derived from the statements on the properties of referents of concepts). Its special Subject Groups on each of its nine levels are outlined and the combinatory facilities at certain positions of the Systematifier are shown. Further elaboration and use have been suggested, be it only as a switching language between the six existing universal classification systems at present in use internationally.
  17. Dahlberg, I.: ¬A faceted classification of general concepts (2011) 0.00
    0.0045145387 = product of:
      0.022572692 = sum of:
        0.022572692 = weight(_text_:of in 4824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022572692 = score(doc=4824,freq=32.0), product of:
            0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.34554482 = fieldWeight in 4824, 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=4824)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    General concepts are all those form-categorial concepts which - attached to a specific concept of a classification system or thesaurus - can help to widen, sometimes even in a syntactical sense, the understanding of a case. In some existing universal classification systems such concepts have been named "auxiliaries" or "common isolates" as in the Colon Classification (CC). However, by such auxiliaries, different kinds of such concepts are listed, e.g. concepts of space and time, concepts of races and languages and concepts of kinds of documents, next to them also concepts of kinds of general activities, properties, persons, and institutions. Such latter kinds form part of the nine aspects ruling the facets in the Information Coding Classification (ICC) through the principle of using a Systematiser for the subdivision of subject groups and fields. Based on this principle and using and extending existing systems of such concepts, e.g. which A. Diemer had presented to the German Thesaurus Committee as well as those found in the UDC, in CC and attached to the Subject Heading System of the German National Library, a faceted classification is proposed for critical assessment, necessary improvement and possible later use in classification systems and thesauri.
    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
  18. Dahlberg, I.: Toward establishment of compatibility between indexing languages (1981) 0.00
    0.004423326 = product of:
      0.02211663 = sum of:
        0.02211663 = weight(_text_:of in 5218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02211663 = score(doc=5218,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 5218, 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=5218)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    Outlines previous work done in the field of compatibility between indexing langugaes (IL), and describes the scope, limitations and advantages of establishing compatibility between IL. Suggests methods for verbal comparisons between IL as well as generation of an alphabetical comparison matrix M1. Conceptual comparisons, however, demand a conceptual reorganization of M1 into a compatibiliy matrix M2 with its two alternatices, namely a system-related matrix M3 and a hierarchical matrix M4. In conclusion, the use of a compatibility matrix and organizational problems are described
  19. Dahlberg, I.: ¬The terminology of subject-fields (2015) 0.00
    0.0042229644 = product of:
      0.02111482 = sum of:
        0.02111482 = weight(_text_:of in 2104) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02111482 = score(doc=2104,freq=28.0), product of:
            0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.32322758 = fieldWeight in 2104, product of:
              5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
                28.0 = termFreq=28.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2104)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    So far terminological work has been mainly directed towards defining very special concepts. The more general ones, e.g. those denoting subject-fields have been neglected with the result that communication on this level has been seriously hampered. There exists a great number of such terms and also a growing trend for the formation of new ones. In the FRG an R&D project was started in 1972 with the collection of names of subject fields, it is intended to assemble their definitions in a dictionary and to build a general concept system by computercomparison of their characteristics as provided by their definitions. The nature of subject-fields is explained, details on the German collection are given as well as some results from a formal analysis of their concepts. It is proposed to initiate similar projects in other linguistic regions as well; this could be done under the auspices of Infoterm. Some application-possibilities for a general concept-system (e. g. a broad system of ordering) are given. The annex displays a scheme of 9 subject areas and about 90 subareas for the sorting of names of subject fields.
    Content
    Digitalisierter Wiederabdruck von: Dahlberg, I.: The terminology of subject-fields. In: International classificatioin. 2 (1975) no. 1, S.31-37. Vgl.: http://www.ergon-verlag.de/isko_ko/downloads/ko_42_2015_1_f.pdf.
  20. Dahlberg, I.: Conceptual structures and systematization (1995) 0.00
    0.004037926 = product of:
      0.02018963 = sum of:
        0.02018963 = weight(_text_:of in 3965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02018963 = score(doc=3965,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06532493 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04177434 = queryNorm
            0.3090647 = fieldWeight in 3965, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3965)
      0.2 = coord(1/5)
    
    Abstract
    Examines the nature of knowledge and the relationship between the transfer of knowledge and information communication. Discusses the 3 kinds of relationships existing between concepts: formal; form-categorical; and material relationships, and characteristics of concepts. Concludes with a discussion of conceptual structures for concept definitions, conceptual systematization , concept systematization and functionality, and the analytical, referent-oriented concept theory