Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Klassifikationstheorie: Elemente / Struktur"
  • × year_i:[1980 TO 1990}
  1. Buchanan, B.: Bibliothekarische Klassifikationstheorie (1989) 0.01 
    0.009754768 = product of:
  0.07316075 = sum of:
    0.055367198 = weight(_text_:buch in 3921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055367198 = score(doc=3921,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13472971 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.41095015 = fieldWeight in 3921, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3921)
    0.017793551 = weight(_text_:und in 3921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017793551 = score(doc=3921,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.27704588 = fieldWeight in 3921, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3921)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    Content
    Inhalt: Klassifikation: Definition und Einsatzmöglichkeiten - Die verschiedenen Arten von Klassenbeziehungen - Präkombinierte Klassifikationssysteme und Facettenklassifikationen - Methodische Überlegungen zur Lösung von Ordnungsproblemen - Konstruktion einer Facettenklassifikation, 1. Teil - Konstruktion einer Facettenklassifikation, 2. Teil - Gestaltung des Notationssystems, 1. Teil - Gestaltung des Notationssystems, 2. Teil - Gestaltung des Notationssystems, 3. Teil - Das alphabetische Sachregister - Universalklassifikationen - Kritische Anmerkungen zur systematischen Ordnung - Automatische Indexierung
    Footnote
    Das ultimative Buch zum Verständnis der Facettenklassifikation
  2. DIN 32705: Klassifikationssysteme: Erstellung und Weiterentwicklung von Klassifikationssystemen (1987) 0.00 
    0.0021792562 = product of:
  0.03268884 = sum of:
    0.03268884 = weight(_text_:und in 1653) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03268884 = score(doc=1653,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.5089658 = fieldWeight in 1653, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1653)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Footnote
    Vgl. zur Einführung in die Norm auch die Beiträge von W. Gödert: Bibliothekarische Klassifikationssysteme ... in: Bibliothek: Forschung und Praxis 11(1987) und I. Dahlberg: DIN 32705: ... in: International classification 19(1992)
  3. DIN 2331: Begriffssysteme und ihre Darstellung (1980) 0.00 
    0.0020969904 = product of:
  0.031454854 = sum of:
    0.031454854 = weight(_text_:und in 1249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031454854 = score(doc=1249,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.48975256 = fieldWeight in 1249, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=1249)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
  4. Weinberger, O.: Begriffsstruktur und Klassifikation (1980) 0.00 
    0.00194184 = product of:
  0.0291276 = sum of:
    0.0291276 = weight(_text_:und in 1440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0291276 = score(doc=1440,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.4535172 = fieldWeight in 1440, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1440)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Klassifikation kann sich auf verschiedene Gegenstandsbereiche beziehen. Sie ist im Prinzip eine extensionale Vorgangsweise resp. ein extensionales Gebilde auch dann, wenn ihr Gegenstand begriffliche Gebilde bzw. Wissen (Wissensbestandteile) sind. Die Erstellung dieses extensionalen Gebildes, das wir 'Klassat' nennen, beruht auf begrifflichen Analysen. Die Probleme der Begriffstrukturen, der Definitionen und der verschiedenen Eigentümlichkeiten gewisser Begriffe der pragmatischen Sprachen stellen daher Grundlagenprobleme der Klassifikationstheorie dar. Hieraus ergibt sich die Aufgabenstellung: Skizzzierung der logischen Grundstruktur der Klassifikation, Hinweis auf die Relevanz methodologischer Momente der Problemsituation für das Klassieren und auf gewisse strukturelle und semantische Eigentümlichkeiten der Begriffsapparatur der modernen Wissenschaften und der Umgangssprache, die Probleme der Klassifizierungsaufgaben mit such bringen und die bewirken, daß die Klassifikationen oft als praktische Annäherungen anzusehen sind
    Source
    Wissensstrukturen und Ordnungsmuster. Proc. der 4. Fachtagung der Gesellschaft für Klassifikation, Salzburg, 16.-19.4.1980. Red.: W. Dahlberg
  5. Gödert, W.: Bibliothekarische Klassifikationssysteme und on-line-Kataloge : Grundlagen und Anwendungen (1987) 0.00 
    0.0016775922 = product of:
  0.025163881 = sum of:
    0.025163881 = weight(_text_:und in 4576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025163881 = score(doc=4576,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.39180204 = fieldWeight in 4576, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4576)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    In diesem Beitrag beabsichtigen wir, einen Überblick über den derzeitigen Stand der bibliothekarischen Klassifikationstheorie zu geben. Die Darstellung ist angelehnt an die 1985 erschienene Norm DIN 32 705,Erstellung und Weiterentwicklung von Klassifikationssystemen', stellt jedoch die Problematik bibliothekarischer Klassifikationssysteme in den Vordergrund. In einem zweiten Teil beschäftigen wir uns mit Problemen von Klassifikationssystemen in typischen bibliothekarischen Anwendungsbereichen. Der Schwerpunkt liegt dabei auf dem Online-Katalog; es wird ein Vorschlag zur Verwendung von Facettenklassifikationen diskutiert. Abschließend werden Fragen der kooperativen klassifikatorischen Inhaltserschließung gestreift.
    Source
    Bibliothek: Forschung und Praxis. 11(1987) H.2, S.152-166
  6. Rescheleit, W.; Menner, L.: Vergleich der Wissensrepräsentationssprache FRL mit Dezimalklassifikation und Facettenklassifikation (1986) 0.00 
    0.0014067038 = product of:
  0.021100556 = sum of:
    0.021100556 = weight(_text_:und in 1555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021100556 = score(doc=1555,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.328536 = fieldWeight in 1555, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1555)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Beim Vergleich von Klassifikationen mit Frame-Wissensbasen für Expertensysteme zeigen sich einige elementare Gemeinsamkeiten: Beide haben das Ziel einer geordneten Darstellung von Wissen. Beide bilden dazu Klassen und weisen hierarchische Beziehungen zwischen diesen Klassen auf. Anahnd der Wissensrepräsentationssprache FRL (Frame Representation Language) wird untersucht, inwieweit beide Systeme sich in das jeweils andere übertragen lassen. Die FRL speichert Wissen in einer speziellen Datenstruktur, den Frames, die aus einem Framenamen, der den jeweiligen Begriff bezeichnet, und Slots, die die Eigenschaften des Begriffs enthalten, bestehen. Eine effektive Speicherung des Wissens wird dadurch erreicht, daß die Frames in einer polyhierarchischen Struktur geordnet sind und in generischer Relation zueinander stehen müssen. Über die generische Relation lassen sich die Eigenschaften höherer Begriffe auf ihre Subklassen vererben. Es werden die Ergebnisse eines Versuchs dargestellt, Elemente bestehender Universalklassifikationen (DK, BC2) in die FRL zu übertragen
    Source
    Die Klassifikation und ihr Umfeld: Proc. 10. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Klassifikation, Münster, 18.-21.6.1986. Hrsg.: P.O. Degens
  7. McLachlan, H.V.: Buchanan, Locke and Wittgenstein on classification (1981) 0.00 
    4.604387E-4 = product of:
  0.00690658 = sum of:
    0.00690658 = product of:
      0.01381316 = sum of:
        0.01381316 = weight(_text_:information in 1781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01381316 = score(doc=1781,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 1781, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1781)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Source
    Journal of information science. 3(1981), S.191-195
  8. Classification Research Group: ¬The need for a faceted classification as the basis of all methods of information retrieval (1985) 0.00 
    1.9733087E-4 = product of:
  0.002959963 = sum of:
    0.002959963 = product of:
      0.005919926 = sum of:
        0.005919926 = weight(_text_:information in 3640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005919926 = score(doc=3640,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3640, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3640)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    This classic paper presents the reasoning behind the research undertaken by the Classification Research Group in London, beginning in 1952 and producing, by 1955, the direction in which the Group's efforts were to go in the next thirty years. The Group's original purpose was to review the basic principles of indexing and classification without committing itself to any existing system. It began by uncovering - among existing systems such as indexes, classifications, automatic selectors, and other information retrieval systems - the steps in the process by means of which a search was performed. The Group went over this very carefully, identifying parts of the process each step of the way. At the time this work was performed systems such as UNITERMS, which did not survive, and other alphabetical coordinated indexes, mainly experimental, were a dime a dozen. Classification to most librarians meant Dewey and the Library of Congress systems, both of which have very serious shortcomings from an intellectual point of view. The Group finally came to the conclusion that a classification of knowledge was necessary for constructing any successful retrieval system. The question then became one of deciding which kind of classification system. The members identified ten unsatisfactory features of existing systems. In fact, they could not find any general class schedule that either was satisfactory or could be made satisfactory. Obviously then, a new system had to be made. The question became one of how to do this. Existing theories did not conform to the theory of logical division; dividing and subdividing an the basis of a single characteristic was not followed. Thus logical division, which is a "top down" method of analysis, was rejected. Generic relationships would have to be made by some other methodology. A "bottom-up" or inductive, as opposed to deductive, method was a possibility. The Group actually decided to use a system in which a given genus could be subdivided in more than one way, thus "yielding a homogeneous group of collateral species."
    The technique chosen was S. R. Ranganathan's facet analysis (q.v.). This method works from the bottom up: a term is categorized according to its parent class, as a kind, state, property, action, operation upon something, result of an Operation, agent, and so on. These modes of definition represent characteristics of division. Following the publication of this paper, the group worked for over ten years developing systems following this general pattern with various changes and experimental arrangements. Ranganathan's Colon Classification was the original of this type of method, but the Group rejected his contention that there are only five fundamental categories to be found in the knowledge base. They did, in fact, end up with varying numbers of categories in the experimental systems which they ultimately were to make. Notation was also recognized as a problem, being complex, illogical, lengthy, obscure and hard to understand. The Group tried to develop a rationale for notation, both as an ordering and as a finding device. To describe and represent a class, a notation could be long, but as a finding device, brevity would be preferable. The Group was to experiment with this aspect of classification and produce a number of interesting results. The Classification Research Group began meeting informally to discuss classification matters in 1952 and continues to meet, usually in London, to the present day. Most of the British authors whose work is presented in these pages have been members for most of the Group's life and continue in it. The Group maintains the basic position outlined in this paper to the present day. Its experimental approach has resulted in much more information about the nature and functions of classification systems. The ideal system has yet to be found. Classification research is still a promising area. The future calls for more experimentation based an reasoned approaches, following the example set by the Classification Research Group.
    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.
  9. Kumar, K.: Theory of classification (1985) 0.00 
    1.9733087E-4 = product of:
  0.002959963 = sum of:
    0.002959963 = product of:
      0.005919926 = sum of:
        0.005919926 = weight(_text_:information in 2069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005919926 = score(doc=2069,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2069, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2069)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    This book provides a coherent account of the theory of classification. It discusses the contributions made by theoreticians like E.C. Richardson, J.B. Brown, W. Hulme, W.C. Berwick Sayers, H.E. Bliss and S.R. Ranganathan. However, the theory put forward by S.R. Ranganathan predominates the whole book because his contribution is far more than anybody else's. Five major schemes - DDC, UDC, LCC, CC, and BC - have also been discussed. Library classification is a specialized area of study. In recent years, library classification has become a vast and complicated field of study using highly technical terminology. A special attempt has been made to provide descriptions as simple and direct as could be possible. To illustrate the theory of classification, large number of examples have been given from all major schemes so that an average student ould also grasp the concepts easily. This book has been especially written to meet the requirements of students, preparing for their library science, documentation, information science diplomas and degrees.
  10. Vickery, B.C.: Systematic subject indexing (1985) 0.00 
    1.8604532E-4 = product of:
  0.0027906797 = sum of:
    0.0027906797 = product of:
      0.0055813594 = sum of:
        0.0055813594 = weight(_text_:information in 3636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0055813594 = score(doc=3636,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 3636, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3636)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Brian C. Vickery, Director and Professor, School of Library, Archive and Information Studies, University College, London, is a prolific writer on classification and information retrieval. This paper was one of the earliest to present initial efforts by the Classification Research Group (q.v.). In it he clearly outlined the need for classification in subject indexing, which, at the time he wrote, was not a commonplace understanding. In fact, some indexing systems were made in the first place specifically to avoid general classification systems which were out of date in all fast-moving disciplines, especially in the "hard" sciences. Vickery picked up Julia Pettee's work (q.v.) an the concealed classification in subject headings (1947) and added to it, mainly adopting concepts from the work of S. R. Ranganathan (q.v.). He had already published a paper an notation in classification, pointing out connections between notation, words, and the concepts which they represent. He was especially concerned about the structure of notational symbols as such symbols represented relationships among subjects. Vickery also emphasized that index terms cover all aspects of a subject so that, in addition to having a basis in classification, the ideal index system should also have standardized nomenclature, as weIl as show evidence of a systematic classing of elementary terms. The necessary linkage between system and terms should be one of a number of methods, notably:
  11. Fairthorne, R.A.: Temporal structure in bibliographic classification (1985) 0.00 
    9.8665434E-5 = product of:
  0.0014799815 = sum of:
    0.0014799815 = product of:
      0.002959963 = sum of:
        0.002959963 = weight(_text_:information in 3651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.002959963 = score(doc=3651,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.058186423 = fieldWeight in 3651, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3651)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    The fan of past documents may be seen across time as a philosophical "wake," translated documents as a sideways relationship and future documents as another fan spreading forward from a given document (p. 365). The "overlap of reading histories can be used to detect common interests among readers," (p. 365) and readers may be classified accordingly. Finally, Fairthorne rejects the notion of a "general" classification, which he regards as a mirage, to be replaced by a citation-type network to identify classes. An interesting feature of his work lies in his linkage between old and new documents via a bibliographic method-citations, authors' names, imprints, style, and vocabulary - rather than topical (subject) terms. This is an indirect method of creating classes. The subject (aboutness) is conceived as a finite, common sharing of knowledge over time (past, present, and future) as opposed to the more common hierarchy of topics in an infinite schema assumed to be universally useful. Fairthorne, a mathematician by training, is a prolific writer an the foundations of classification and information. His professional career includes work with the Royal Engineers Chemical Warfare Section and the Royal Aircraft Establishment (RAE). He was the founder of the Computing Unit which became the RAE Mathematics Department.

Authors

Languages

Types

Themes