Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.002714016 = product of:
  0.031211182 = sum of:
    0.02396705 = sum of:
      0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 3849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.007856515 = score(doc=3849,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
            0.023567878 = queryNorm
          0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 3849, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3849)
      0.016110536 = weight(_text_:29 in 3849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.016110536 = score(doc=3849,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.08290443 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.023567878 = queryNorm
          0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 3849, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3849)
    0.0072441325 = product of:
      0.014488265 = sum of:
        0.014488265 = weight(_text_:international in 3849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014488265 = score(doc=3849,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.18428308 = fieldWeight in 3849, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3849)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.08695652 = coord(2/23)

Abstract

Various fields, each with its own theories, techniques, and tools, are concerned with identifying and representing the conceptual structure of specific knowledge domains. This paper compares facet analysis, an analytic technique coming out of knowledge organization (especially as undertaken by members of the Classification Research Group (CRG)), with semantic frame analysis, an analytic technique coming out of lexical semantics (especially as undertaken by the developers of Frame-Net) The investigation addresses three questions: 1) how do CRG-style facet analysis and semantic frame analysis characterize the conceptual structures that they identify?; 2) how similar are the techniques they use?; and, 3) how similar are the conceptual structures they produce? Facet analysis is concerned with the logical categories underlying the terminology of an entire field, while semantic frame analysis is concerned with the participant-and-prop structure manifest in sentences about a type of situation or event. When their scope of application is similar, as, for example, in the areas of the performing arts or education, the resulting facets and semantic frame elements often bear striking resemblance, without being the same; facets are more often expressed as semantic types, while frame elements are more often expressed as roles.

Content

Beitrag in einem Special Issue: Selected Papers from the International UDC Seminar 2017, Faceted Classification Today: Theory, Technology and End Users, 14-15 September, London UK.

Date

29. 9.2017 18:58:02

4.8590987E-4 = product of:
  0.011175927 = sum of:
    0.011175927 = product of:
      0.022351854 = sum of:
        0.022351854 = weight(_text_:22 in 632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022351854 = score(doc=632,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08253069 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 632, 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=632)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Date

22. 2.2013 11:31:25

1.9323116E-4 = product of:
  0.0044443165 = sum of:
    0.0044443165 = product of:
      0.008888633 = sum of:
        0.008888633 = weight(_text_:1 in 571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008888633 = score(doc=571,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.15353142 = fieldWeight in 571, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=571)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.04347826 = coord(1/23)

Abstract

A native of Germany and a former teacher of languages and music, Julius Otto Kaiser (1868-1927) came to the Philadelphia Commercial Museum to be its librarian in 1896. Faced with the problem of making "information" accessible, he developed a method of indexing he called systematic indexing. The first draft of his scheme, published in 1896-97, was an important landmark in the history of subject analysis. R. K. Olding credits Kaiser with making the greatest single advance in indexing theory since Charles A. Cutter and John Metcalfe eulogizes him by observing that "in sheer capacity for really scientific and logical thinking, Kaiser's was probably the best mind that has ever applied itself to subject indexing." Kaiser was an admirer of "system." By systematic indexing he meant indicating information not with natural language expressions as, for instance, Cutter had advocated, but with artificial expressions constructed according to formulas. Kaiser grudged natural language its approximateness, its vagaries, and its ambiguities. The formulas he introduced were to provide a "machinery for regularising or standardising language" (paragraph 67). Kaiser recognized three categories or "facets" of index terms: (1) terms of concretes, representing things, real or imaginary (e.g., money, machines); (2) terms of processes, representing either conditions attaching to things or their actions (e.g., trade, manufacture); and (3) terms of localities, representing, for the most part, countries (e.g., France, South Africa). Expressions in Kaiser's index language were called statements. Statements consisted of sequences of terms, the syntax of which was prescribed by formula. These formulas specified sequences of terms by reference to category types. Only three citation orders were permitted: a term in the concrete category followed by one in the process category (e.g., Wool-Scouring); (2) a country term followed by a process term (e.g., Brazil - Education); and (3) a concrete term followed by a country term, followed by a process term (e.g., Nitrate-Chile-Trade). Kaiser's system was a precursor of two of the most significant developments in twentieth-century approaches to subject access-the special purpose use of language for indexing, thus the concept of index language, which was to emerge as a generative idea at the time of the second Cranfield experiment (1966) and the use of facets to categorize subject indicators, which was to become the characterizing feature of analytico-synthetic indexing methods such as the Colon classification. In addition to its visionary quality, Kaiser's work is notable for its meticulousness and honesty, as can be seen, for instance, in his observations about the difficulties in facet definition.

Footnote

Original in: Kaiser, J.O.: Systematic indexing. London: Pitman 1991. Vol. II, Paragraphs 1-18, 52-58, 295-348.