Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0022018396 = product of:
  0.033027593 = sum of:
    0.033027593 = weight(_text_:und in 1433) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033027593 = score(doc=1433,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.51424015 = fieldWeight in 1433, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1433)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Es wird der Wissensbegriff und das Ordnungswissen, wie es sich aus der aristotelisch-thomistischen Tradition herleitete mit den Auffassungen über Wissensformen, wie sie bei Hobbes, Locke und anderen Autoren der beginnenden Neuzeit bestehen, in Verbindung gebracht und am Beispiel der Klassifikationsversuche von Bacon, Descartes, Leibniz, Locke und Hobbes untersucht, in welchem Maße der Methodendualismus von Empirismus und Rationalismus in die Klassifikationsmomente eingeht, wieweit zugleich auch wissenschaftsgeschichtliche, wissenssoziologische, gesellschaftspolitische und wissenschaftsorganisatorische Faktoren auf die Klassifikation einwirken, welche verschiedenen Ansätze zu einer Wissensordnung unternommen wurden in einer Epoche, die nicht unwesentlich die weitere Wissenschaftsentwicklung bestimmt hat

Source

Wissensstrukturen und Ordnungsmuster. Proc. der 4. Fachtagung der Gesellschaft für Klassifikation, Salzburg, 16.-19.4.1980. Red.: W. Dahlberg

0.0014678931 = product of:
  0.022018395 = sum of:
    0.022018395 = weight(_text_:und in 1167) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022018395 = score(doc=1167,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.34282678 = fieldWeight in 1167, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1167)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

0.0014678931 = product of:
  0.022018395 = sum of:
    0.022018395 = weight(_text_:und in 1507) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022018395 = score(doc=1507,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.34282678 = fieldWeight in 1507, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1507)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

5.2621565E-4 = product of:
  0.0078932345 = sum of:
    0.0078932345 = product of:
      0.015786469 = sum of:
        0.015786469 = weight(_text_:information in 683) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015786469 = score(doc=683,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.3103276 = fieldWeight in 683, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=683)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Source

Intelligent information systems: prgress and prospects. Ed.: R. Davies

4.604387E-4 = product of:
  0.00690658 = sum of:
    0.00690658 = product of:
      0.01381316 = sum of:
        0.01381316 = weight(_text_:information in 3407) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01381316 = score(doc=3407,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 3407, 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=3407)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Imprint

Urbana, Ill. : Univ. of Ill., Graduate School of Library and Information Science

1.8604532E-4 = product of:
  0.0027906797 = sum of:
    0.0027906797 = product of:
      0.0055813594 = sum of:
        0.0055813594 = weight(_text_:information in 571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0055813594 = score(doc=571,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 571, 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=571)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

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.

1.3155391E-4 = product of:
  0.0019733086 = sum of:
    0.0019733086 = product of:
      0.0039466172 = sum of:
        0.0039466172 = weight(_text_:information in 3626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0039466172 = score(doc=3626,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 3626, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3626)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

One of the earliest works on the theory of classification appeared in a series of six chapters an the "Principles of Book Classification" published between October 1911 and May 1912 in the Library Association Record. In this publication, the author, E. Wyndham Hulme (1859-1954) whose career included twenty-five years as Librarian of the British Patent Office, set forth the fundamentals of classification as manifested in both the classed and the alphabetical catalogs. The work and the ideas contained therein have largely been forgotten. However, one phrase stands out and has been used frequently in the discussions of classification and indexing, particularly in reference to systems such as Library of Congress Classification, Dewey Decimal Classification, and Library of Congress Subject Headings. That phrase is "literary warrant"-meaning that the basis for classification is to be found in the actual published literature rather than abstract philosophical ideas or concepts in the universe of knowledge or the "order of nature and system of the sciences." To the extent that classification and indexing systems should be based upon existing literature rather than the universe of human knowledge, the concept of "literary warrant" defines systems used in library and information services, as distinguished from a purely philosophical classification. Library classification attempts to classify library materials-the records of knowledge-rather than knowledge itself; the establishment of a class or a heading for a subject is based an existing literature treating that subject. The following excerpt contains Hulme's definition of "literary warrant." Hulme first rejects the notion of using "the nature of the subject matter to be divided" as the basis for establishing headings, then he proceeds to propose the use of "literary warrant," that is, "an accurate survey and measurement of classes in literature," as the determinant.

1.3155391E-4 = product of:
  0.0019733086 = sum of:
    0.0019733086 = product of:
      0.0039466172 = sum of:
        0.0039466172 = weight(_text_:information in 3628) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0039466172 = score(doc=3628,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.0775819 = fieldWeight in 3628, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3628)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

To those outside the field of library science, the name Melvil Dewey (1851-1931) is virtually synonymous with library classification. To those in the field, Dewey has been recognized as the premier classification maker. His enormously successful system (i.e., successful in terms of the wide adoption of the system around the world for over one hundred years) has now undergone nineteen editions. The Dewey Decimal Classification has been translated into more than twenty languages and is the most widely adopted classification scheme in the world. Even in its earliest manifestations, the Dewey Decimal Classification contained features that anticipated modern classification theory. Among these are the use of mnemonics and the commonly applied standard subdivisions, later called "common isolates" by S. R. Ranganathan (q.v.), which are the mainstays of facet analysis and synthesis. The device of standard subdivisions is an indication of the recognition of common aspects that pervade all subjects. The use of mnemonics, whereby recurring concepts in the scheme are represented by the same notation, for example, geographic concepts and language concepts, eased the transition of the Dewey Decimal Classification from a largely enumerative system to an increasingly faceted one. Another significant feature of the Dewey Decimal Classification is the use of the hierarchical notation based an the arabic numeral system. To a large extent, this feature accounts for the wide use and success of the system in the world across language barriers. With the prospect of increasing online information retrieval, the hierarchical notation will have a significant impact an the effectiveness of the Dewey Decimal Classification as an online retrieval tool. Because the notation is hierarchical, for example, with increasing digits in a number representing narrower subjects and decreasing digits indicating broader subjects, the Dewey Decimal Classification is particularly useful in generic searches for broadening or narrowing search results. In the preface to the second edition of his Decimal Classification Dewey explained the features of his "new" system. The excerpt below presents his ideas and theory concerning the rational basis of his classification, the standard subdivisions, the hierarchical notation based an decimal numbers, the use of mnemonics, the relative index, and relative location. It also reflects Dewey's lifelong interest in simplified spelling.