Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0033128732 = product of:
  0.02319011 = sum of:
    0.019013375 = weight(_text_:system in 5563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019013375 = score(doc=5563,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07727166 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.24605882 = fieldWeight in 5563, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5563)
    0.004176737 = weight(_text_:information in 5563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004176737 = score(doc=5563,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5563, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5563)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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in 1984 the attitude changed, when an OCLC study of Karen Markey started to show what could be done even with an "outdated system" such as the Dewey Decimal Classification in the computer, once it was visible on a screen to show the helpfulness of a classified library catalogue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 We know that our systems are outdated but we seem still to be unable to replace them with better ones.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?

Footnote

Paper presented at the 36th Allerton Institute, 23-25 Oct 94, Allerton Park, Monticello, IL: "New Roles for Classification in Libraries and Information Networks: Presentation and Reports"

0.001771637 = product of:
  0.024802918 = sum of:
    0.024802918 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4128) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024802918 = score(doc=4128,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07421378 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 4128, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4128)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Konstruktion und Retrieval von Wissen: 3. Tagung der Deutschen ISKO-Sektion einschließlich der Vorträge des Workshops "Thesauri als terminologische Lexika", Weilburg, 27.-29.10.1993. Hrsg.: N. Meder u.a

4.176737E-4 = product of:
  0.0058474317 = sum of:
    0.0058474317 = weight(_text_:information in 541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0058474317 = score(doc=541,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 541, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=541)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Publication of the 2nd ed. of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification presents librarians with a fresh opportunity to reassess the nature and benefits of helpful order for their collections and records. Half the parts are now available, exhibiting major expansion, revision, and development of the scheme. The new edition is sponsored by the Bliss Classification Association which welcomes the views and inputs of American librarians. It has been applied to libraries and information centers and used in thesaurus construction. This edition provides intensive subject specifity through detailed term listings and full synthetic capability. The notation is designed to be as brief as possible for the detail attainable. The classification allows a large measure of flexibility in arrangement and syntax

4.176737E-4 = product of:
  0.0058474317 = sum of:
    0.0058474317 = weight(_text_:information in 851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0058474317 = score(doc=851,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 851, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=851)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Content

This article compares the qualitative method of grounded theory (GT) with Ranganathan's construction of faceted classifications (FC) in library and information science. Both struggle with a core problem-i.e., the representation of vernacular words and processes, empirically discovered, which will, although ethnographically faithful, be powerful beyond the single instance or case study. The article compares Glaser and Strauss's (1967) work with that of Ranganathan(1950).

2.9833836E-4 = product of:
  0.004176737 = sum of:
    0.004176737 = weight(_text_:information in 5566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004176737 = score(doc=5566,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04306919 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02453417 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5566, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5566)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Footnote

Paper presented at the 36th Allerton Institute, 23-25 Oct 94, Allerton Park, Monticello, IL: "New Roles for Classification in Libraries and Information Networks: Presentation and Reports"