Search (156 results, page 8 of 8)

  • × theme_ss:"Klassifikationstheorie: Elemente / Struktur"
  1. Araghi, G.F.: ¬A new scheme for library classification (2004) 0.00
    2.3911135E-4 = product of:
      0.005499561 = sum of:
        0.005499561 = product of:
          0.010999122 = sum of:
            0.010999122 = weight(_text_:1 in 5659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.010999122 = score(doc=5659,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.023567878 = queryNorm
                0.18998542 = fieldWeight in 5659, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5659)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    
    Date
    1. 8.2006 19:12:13
  2. Denton, W.: Putting facets on the Web : an annotated bibliography (2003) 0.00
    2.261641E-4 = product of:
      0.005201774 = sum of:
        0.005201774 = weight(_text_:im in 2467) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005201774 = score(doc=2467,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.066621356 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
              0.023567878 = queryNorm
            0.07807968 = fieldWeight in 2467, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8267863 = idf(docFreq=7115, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2467)
      0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    
    Theme
    Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval
  3. Mayor, C.; Robinson, L.: Ontological realism, concepts and classification in molecular biology : development and application of the gene ontology (2014) 0.00
    2.0495258E-4 = product of:
      0.0047139092 = sum of:
        0.0047139092 = product of:
          0.0094278185 = sum of:
            0.0094278185 = weight(_text_:1 in 1771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0094278185 = score(doc=1771,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.023567878 = queryNorm
                0.16284466 = fieldWeight in 1771, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1771)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 70(2014) no.1, S.173-193
  4. Tennis, J.T.: Foundational, first-order, and second-order classification theory (2015) 0.00
    2.0495258E-4 = product of:
      0.0047139092 = sum of:
        0.0047139092 = product of:
          0.0094278185 = sum of:
            0.0094278185 = weight(_text_:1 in 2204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0094278185 = score(doc=2204,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.023567878 = queryNorm
                0.16284466 = fieldWeight in 2204, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2204)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    
    Abstract
    Both basic and applied research on the construction, implementation, maintenance, and evaluation of classification schemes is called classification theory. If we employ Ritzer's metatheoretical method of analysis on the over one-hundred year-old body of literature, we can se categories of theory emerge. This paper looks at one particular part of knowledge organization work, namely classification theory, and asks 1) what are the contours of this intellectual space, and, 2) what have we produced in the theoretical reflection on constructing, implementing, and evaluating classification schemes? The preliminary findings from this work are that classification theory can be separated into three kinds: foundational classification theory, first-order classification theory, and second-order classification theory, each with its own concerns and objects of study.
  5. Bliss, H.E.: ¬A bibliographic classification : principles and definitions (1985) 0.00
    1.9323116E-4 = product of:
      0.0044443165 = sum of:
        0.0044443165 = product of:
          0.008888633 = sum of:
            0.008888633 = weight(_text_:1 in 3621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.008888633 = score(doc=3621,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.023567878 = queryNorm
                0.15353142 = fieldWeight in 3621, 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=3621)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    
    Abstract
    Henry Evelyn Bliss (1870-1955) devoted several decades of his life to the study of classification and the development of the Bibliographic Classification scheme while serving as a librarian in the College of the City of New York. In the course of the development of the Bibliographic Classification, Bliss developed a body of classification theory published in a number of articles and books, among which the best known are The Organization of Knowledge and the System of the Sciences (1929), Organization of Knowledge in Libraries and the Subject Approach to Books (1933; 2nd ed., 1939), and the lengthy preface to A Bibliographic Classification (Volumes 1-2, 1940; 2nd ed., 1952). In developing the Bibliographic Classification, Bliss carefully established its philosophical and theoretical basis, more so than was attempted by the makers of other classification schemes, with the possible exception of S. R. Ranganathan (q.v.) and his Colon Classification. The basic principles established by Bliss for the Bibliographic Classification are: consensus, collocation of related subjects, subordination of special to general and gradation in specialty, and the relativity of classes and of classification (hence alternative location and alternative treatment). In the preface to the schedules of A Bibliographic Classification, Bliss spells out the general principles of classification as weIl as principles specifically related to his scheme. The first volume of the schedules appeared in 1940. In 1952, he issued a second edition of the volume with a rewritten preface, from which the following excerpt is taken, and with the addition of a "Concise Synopsis," which is also included here to illustrate the principles of classificatory structure. In the excerpt reprinted below, Bliss discusses the correlation between classes, concepts, and terms, as weIl as the hierarchical structure basic to his classification scheme. In his discussion of cross-classification, Bliss recognizes the "polydimensional" nature of classification and the difficulties inherent in the two-dimensional approach which is characteristic of linear classification. This is one of the earliest works in which the multidimensional nature of classification is recognized. The Bibliographic Classification did not meet with great success in the United States because the Dewey Decimal Classification and the Library of Congress Classification were already weIl ensconced in American libraries by then. Nonetheless, it attracted considerable attention in the British Commonwealth and elsewhere in the world. A committee was formed in Britain which later became the Bliss Classification Association. A faceted edition of the scheme has been in preparation under the direction of J. Mills and V. Broughton. Several parts of this new edition, entitled Bliss Bibliographic Classification, have been published.
    Footnote
    Original in: Bliss, H.E.: A bibliographic classification extended by systematic auxuliary schedules for composite specification and notation. vols 1-2. 2nd ed. New York: Wilson 1952. S.3-11.
  6. Classification Research Group: ¬The need for a faceted classification as the basis of all methods of information retrieval (1985) 0.00
    1.8897736E-4 = product of:
      0.004346479 = sum of:
        0.004346479 = product of:
          0.008692958 = sum of:
            0.008692958 = weight(_text_:international in 3640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.008692958 = score(doc=3640,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.078619614 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.023567878 = queryNorm
                0.11056984 = fieldWeight in 3640, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.33588 = idf(docFreq=4276, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3640)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    
    Footnote
    Original in: Proceedings of the International Study Conference on Classification for Information Retrieval held at Beatrice Webb House, Dorking, England, 13th-17th May 1957. London: Aslib 1957, Appendix 2, S.137-147.
  7. Beghtol, C.: Classification for information retrieval and classification for knowledge discovery : relationships between "professional" and "naïve" classifications (2003) 0.00
    1.707938E-4 = product of:
      0.0039282576 = sum of:
        0.0039282576 = product of:
          0.007856515 = sum of:
            0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 3021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.007856515 = score(doc=3021,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.023567878 = queryNorm
                0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 3021, 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=3021)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    
    Footnote
    Vgl. Stellungnahme dazu in: Hjoerland, B., J. Nicolaisen: Scientific and scholarly classifications are not "naïve": a comment to Beghtol (2003). In: Knowledge organization. 31(2004) no.1, S.55-61.
  8. Jacob, E.K.: ¬The everyday world of work : two approaches to the investigation of classification in context (2001) 0.00
    1.707938E-4 = product of:
      0.0039282576 = sum of:
        0.0039282576 = product of:
          0.007856515 = sum of:
            0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 4494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.007856515 = score(doc=4494,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.023567878 = queryNorm
                0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 4494, 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=4494)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 57(2001) no.1, S.76-99
  9. Keshet, Y.: Classification systems in the light of sociology of knowledge (2011) 0.00
    1.707938E-4 = product of:
      0.0039282576 = sum of:
        0.0039282576 = product of:
          0.007856515 = sum of:
            0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 4493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.007856515 = score(doc=4493,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.023567878 = queryNorm
                0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 4493, 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=4493)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 67(2011) no.1, S.144-158
  10. Hjoerland, B.: Facet analysis : the logical approach to knowledge organization (2013) 0.00
    1.707938E-4 = product of:
      0.0039282576 = sum of:
        0.0039282576 = product of:
          0.007856515 = sum of:
            0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 2720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.007856515 = score(doc=2720,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.023567878 = queryNorm
                0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 2720, 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=2720)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    
    Abstract
    The facet-analytic paradigm is probably the most distinct approach to knowledge organization within Library and Information Science, and in many ways it has dominated what has be termed "modern classification theory". It was mainly developed by S.R. Ranganathan and the British Classification Research Group, but it is mostly based on principles of logical division developed more than two millennia ago. Colon Classification (CC) and Bliss 2 (BC2) are among the most important systems developed on this theoretical basis, but it has also influenced the development of other systems, such as the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) and is also applied in many websites. It still has a strong position in the field and it is the most explicit and "pure" theoretical approach to knowledge organization (KO) (but it is not by implication necessarily also the most important one). The strength of this approach is its logical principles and the way it provides structures in knowledge organization systems (KOS). The main weaknesses are (1) its lack of empirical basis and (2) its speculative ordering of knowledge without basis in the development or influence of theories and socio-historical studies. It seems to be based on the problematic assumption that relations between concepts are a priori and not established by the development of models, theories and laws.
  11. Broughton, V.: ¬The need for a faceted classification as the basis of all methods of information retrieval (2006) 0.00
    1.707938E-4 = product of:
      0.0039282576 = sum of:
        0.0039282576 = product of:
          0.007856515 = sum of:
            0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.007856515 = score(doc=2874,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.023567878 = queryNorm
                0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 2874, 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=2874)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    
    Source
    Aslib proceedings. 58(2006) nos.1/2, S.49-72
  12. Frické, M.: Logical division (2016) 0.00
    1.707938E-4 = product of:
      0.0039282576 = sum of:
        0.0039282576 = product of:
          0.007856515 = sum of:
            0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 3183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.007856515 = score(doc=3183,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.023567878 = queryNorm
                0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 3183, 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=3183)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    
    Content
    Contents: 1. Introduction: Kinds of Division; 2. The Basics of Logical Division; 3. History; 4. Formalization; 5. The Rules; 6. The Status of the Rules; 7. The Process of Logical Division; 8. Conclusion
  13. Bullard, J.; Burns, C.S.; VanScoy, A.: Warrant as a means to study classification system design (2017) 0.00
    1.707938E-4 = product of:
      0.0039282576 = sum of:
        0.0039282576 = product of:
          0.007856515 = sum of:
            0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 3360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.007856515 = score(doc=3360,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.023567878 = queryNorm
                0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 3360, 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=3360)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 73(2017) no.1, S.75-90
  14. Quinlan, E.; Rafferty, P.: Astronomy classification : towards a faceted classification scheme (2019) 0.00
    1.707938E-4 = product of:
      0.0039282576 = sum of:
        0.0039282576 = product of:
          0.007856515 = sum of:
            0.007856515 = weight(_text_:1 in 5313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.007856515 = score(doc=5313,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.023567878 = queryNorm
                0.13570388 = fieldWeight in 5313, 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=5313)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    
    Date
    1. 7.2019 18:33:13
  15. Broughton, V.: Essential classification (2004) 0.00
    1.673431E-4 = product of:
      0.003848891 = sum of:
        0.003848891 = product of:
          0.007697782 = sum of:
            0.007697782 = weight(_text_:1 in 2824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.007697782 = score(doc=2824,freq=12.0), product of:
                0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.023567878 = queryNorm
                0.13296211 = fieldWeight in 2824, product of:
                  3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                    12.0 = termFreq=12.0
                  2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2824)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    
    Content
    Parallelausgabe: New York, NY: Neal-Schuman (ISBN 1-55570-507-3)
    Footnote
    Rez. in: KO 32(2005) no.1, S.47-49 (M. Hudon): "Vanda Broughton's Essential Classification is the most recent addition to a very small set of classification textbooks published over the past few years. The book's 21 chapters are based very closely an the cataloguing and classification module at the School of Library, Archive, and Information studies at University College, London. The author's main objective is clear: this is "first and foremost a book about how to classify. The emphasis throughout is an the activity of classification rather than the theory, the practical problems of the organization of collections, and the needs of the users" (p. 1). This is not a theoretical work, but a basic course in classification and classification scheme application. For this reviewer, who also teaches "Classification 101," this is also a fascinating peek into how a colleague organizes content and structures her course. "Classification is everywhere" (p. 1): the first sentence of this book is also one of the first statements in my own course, and Professor Broughton's metaphors - the supermarket, canned peas, flowers, etc. - are those that are used by our colleagues around the world. The combination of tone, writing style and content display are reader-friendly; they are in fact what make this book remarkable and what distinguishes it from more "formal" textbooks, such as The Organization of Information, the superb text written and recently updated (2004) by Professor Arlene Taylor (2nd ed. Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited, 2004). Reading Essential Classification, at times, feels like being in a classroom, facing a teacher who assures you that "you don't need to worry about this at this stage" (p. 104), and reassures you that, although you now speed a long time looking for things, "you will soon speed up when you get to know the scheme better" (p. 137). This teacher uses redundancy in a productive fashion, and she is not afraid to express her own opinions ("I think that if these concepts are helpful they may be used" (p. 245); "It's annoying that LCC doesn't provide clearer instructions, but if you keep your head and take them one step at a time [i.e. the tables] they're fairly straightforward" (p. 174)). Chapters 1 to 7 present the essential theoretical concepts relating to knowledge organization and to bibliographic classification. The author is adept at making and explaining distinctions: known-item retrieval versus subject retrieval, personal versus public/shared/official classification systems, scientific versus folk classification systems, object versus aspect classification systems, semantic versus syntactic relationships, and so on. Chapters 8 and 9 discuss the practice of classification, through content analysis and subject description. A short discussion of difficult subjects, namely the treatment of unique concepts (persons, places, etc.) as subjects seems a little advanced for a beginners' class.
    Isbn
    1-85604-514-5
  16. Facets: a fruitful notion in many domains : special issue on facet analysis (2008) 0.00
    8.53969E-5 = product of:
      0.0019641288 = sum of:
        0.0019641288 = product of:
          0.0039282576 = sum of:
            0.0039282576 = weight(_text_:1 in 3262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0039282576 = score(doc=3262,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.057894554 = queryWeight, product of:
                  2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.023567878 = queryNorm
                0.06785194 = fieldWeight in 3262, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  2.4565027 = idf(docFreq=10304, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3262)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.04347826 = coord(1/23)
    
    Footnote
    Rez. in: KO 36(2009) no.1, S.62-63 (K. La Barre): "This special issue of Axiomathes presents an ambitious dual agenda. It attempts to highlight aspects of facet analysis (as used in LIS) that are shared by cognate approaches in philosophy, psychology, linguistics and computer science. Secondarily, the issue aims to attract others to the study and use of facet analysis. The authors represent a blend of lifetime involvement with facet analysis, such as Vickery, Broughton, Beghtol, and Dahlberg; those with well developed research agendas such as Tudhope, and Priss; and relative newcomers such as Gnoli, Cheti and Paradisi, and Slavic. Omissions are inescapable, but a more balanced issue would have resulted from inclusion of at least one researcher from the Indian school of facet theory. Another valuable addition might have been a reaction to the issue by one of the chief critics of facet analysis. Potentially useful, but absent, is a comprehensive bibliography of resources for those wishing to engage in further study, that now lie scattered throughout the issue. Several of the papers assume relative familiarity with facet analytical concepts and definitions, some of which are contested even within LIS. Gnoli's introduction (p. 127-130) traces the trajectory, extensions and new developments of this analytico- synthetic approach to subject access, while providing a laundry list of cognate approaches that are similar to facet analysis. This brief essay and the article by Priss (p. 243-255) directly addresses this first part of Gnoli's agenda. Priss provides detailed discussion of facet-like structures in computer science (p. 245- 246), and outlines the similarity between Formal Concept Analysis and facets. This comparison is equally fruitful for researchers in computer science and library and information science. By bridging into a discussion of visualization challenges for facet display, further research is also invited. Many of the remaining papers comprehensively detail the intellectual heritage of facet analysis (Beghtol; Broughton, p. 195-198; Dahlberg; Tudhope and Binding, p. 213-215; Vickery). Beghtol's (p. 131-144) examination of the origins of facet theory through the lens of the textbooks written by Ranganathan's mentor W.C.B. Sayers (1881-1960), Manual of Classification (1926, 1944, 1955) and a textbook written by Mills A Modern Outline of Classification (1964), serves to reveal the deep intellectual heritage of the changes in classification theory over time, as well as Ranganathan's own influence on and debt to Sayers.

Authors

Languages

Types

  • a 133
  • m 17
  • el 4
  • s 4
  • n 2
  • d 1
  • More… Less…