Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  • × theme_ss:"Klassifikationstheorie: Elemente / Struktur"
  1. Beghtol, C.: Response to Hjoerland and Nicolaisen (2004) 0.01
    0.006773503 = product of:
      0.04741452 = sum of:
        0.04741452 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 3536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04741452 = score(doc=3536,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037368443 = queryNorm
            0.22150815 = fieldWeight in 3536, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3536)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    
    Abstract
    I am writing to correct some of the misconceptions that Hjoerland and Nicolaisen appear to have about my paper in the previous issue of Knowledge Organization. I would like to address aspects of two of these misapprehensions. The first is the faulty interpretation they have given to my use of the term "naïve classification," and the second is the kinds of classification systems that they appear to believe are discussed in my paper as examples of "naïve classifications." First, the term "naïve classification" is directly analogous to the widely-understood and widelyaccepted term "naïve indexing." It is not analogous to the terms to which Hjorland and Nicolaisen compare it (i.e., "naïve physics", "naïve biology"). The term as I have defined it is not pejorative. It does not imply that the scholars who have developed naïve classifications have not given profoundly serious thought to their own scholarly work. My paper distinguishes between classifications for new knowledge developed by scholars in the various disciplines for the purposes of advancing disciplinary knowledge ("naïve classifications") and classifications for previously existing knowledge developed by information professionals for the purposes of creating access points in information retrieval systems ("professional classifications"). This distinction rests primarily an the purpose of the kind of classification system in question and only secondarily an the knowledge base of the scholars who have created it. Hjoerland and Nicolaisen appear to have misunderstood this point, which is made clearly and adequately in the title, in the abstract and throughout the text of my paper.
  2. Lin, W.-Y.C.: ¬The concept and applications of faceted classifications (2006) 0.00
    0.0028930905 = product of:
      0.020251632 = sum of:
        0.020251632 = product of:
          0.040503263 = sum of:
            0.040503263 = weight(_text_:22 in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.040503263 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.037368443 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5083, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5083)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    
    Date
    27. 5.2007 22:19:35
  3. Olson, H.A.: Sameness and difference : a cultural foundation of classification (2001) 0.00
    0.002531454 = product of:
      0.017720178 = sum of:
        0.017720178 = product of:
          0.035440356 = sum of:
            0.035440356 = weight(_text_:22 in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.035440356 = score(doc=166,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.037368443 = queryNorm
                0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 166, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=166)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  4. Slavic, A.: On the nature and typology of documentary classifications and their use in a networked environment (2007) 0.00
    0.0021698177 = product of:
      0.015188723 = sum of:
        0.015188723 = product of:
          0.030377446 = sum of:
            0.030377446 = weight(_text_:22 in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.030377446 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.037368443 = 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)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    
    Date
    22.12.2007 17:22:31
  5. Beghtol, C.: Naïve classification systems and the global information society (2004) 0.00
    0.0018081815 = product of:
      0.01265727 = sum of:
        0.01265727 = product of:
          0.02531454 = sum of:
            0.02531454 = weight(_text_:22 in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.02531454 = score(doc=3483,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.037368443 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3483, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3483)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    
    Pages
    S.19-22
  6. Qin, J.: Evolving paradigms of knowledge representation and organization : a comparative study of classification, XML/DTD and ontology (2003) 0.00
    0.0014465452 = product of:
      0.010125816 = sum of:
        0.010125816 = product of:
          0.020251632 = sum of:
            0.020251632 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.020251632 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.037368443 = queryNorm
                0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    
    Date
    12. 9.2004 17:22:35
  7. Wang, Z.; Chaudhry, A.S.; Khoo, C.S.G.: Using classification schemes and thesauri to build an organizational taxonomy for organizing content and aiding navigation (2008) 0.00
    0.0014465452 = product of:
      0.010125816 = sum of:
        0.010125816 = product of:
          0.020251632 = sum of:
            0.020251632 = weight(_text_:22 in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.020251632 = score(doc=2346,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.13085791 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.037368443 = queryNorm
                0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2346, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2346)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    
    Date
    7.11.2008 15:22:04