Search (51 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  • × theme_ss:"Klassifikationstheorie: Elemente / Struktur"
  1. Scerri, E.R.: ¬The periodic table : its story and its significance (2007) 0.01 
    0.0082494235 = product of:
  0.061870676 = sum of:
    0.044216685 = weight(_text_:allgemeines in 2492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044216685 = score(doc=2492,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16533206 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.705423 = idf(docFreq=399, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.2674417 = fieldWeight in 2492, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.705423 = idf(docFreq=399, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2492)
    0.01765399 = weight(_text_:und in 2492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01765399 = score(doc=2492,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.27487293 = fieldWeight in 2492, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2492)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    Classification
    VB 2400 Chemie und Pharmazie / Bibliographien und Nachschlagewerke, Geschichte und Didaktik der Chemie und Pharmazie, Betriebssicherheit / Geschichte der Chemie und Pharmazie / Geschichte einzelner Probleme und Teilgebiete der Chemie und Pharmazie / Allgemeines
    RVK
    VB 2400 Chemie und Pharmazie / Bibliographien und Nachschlagewerke, Geschichte und Didaktik der Chemie und Pharmazie, Betriebssicherheit / Geschichte der Chemie und Pharmazie / Geschichte einzelner Probleme und Teilgebiete der Chemie und Pharmazie / Allgemeines
  2. Beghtol, C.: Naïve classification systems and the global information society (2004) 0.00 
    0.0019664785 = product of:
  0.029497176 = sum of:
    0.029497176 = sum of:
      0.009866543 = weight(_text_:information in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009866543 = score(doc=3483,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 3483, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3483)
      0.019630633 = weight(_text_:22 in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.019630633 = score(doc=3483,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = 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)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Classification is an activity that transcends time and space and that bridges the divisions between different languages and cultures, including the divisions between academic disciplines. Classificatory activity, however, serves different purposes in different situations. Classifications for infonnation retrieval can be called "professional" classifications and classifications in other fields can be called "naïve" classifications because they are developed by people who have no particular interest in classificatory issues. The general purpose of naïve classification systems is to discover new knowledge. In contrast, the general purpose of information retrieval classifications is to classify pre-existing knowledge. Different classificatory purposes may thus inform systems that are intended to span the cultural specifics of the globalized information society. This paper builds an previous research into the purposes and characteristics of naïve classifications. It describes some of the relationships between the purpose and context of a naive classification, the units of analysis used in it, and the theory that the context and the units of analysis imply.
    Pages
    S.19-22
    Source
    Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine
  3. Slavic, A.: On the nature and typology of documentary classifications and their use in a networked environment (2007) 0.00 
    0.0019651123 = product of:
  0.029476684 = sum of:
    0.029476684 = sum of:
      0.005919926 = weight(_text_:information in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.005919926 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 780, 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=780)
      0.023556758 = weight(_text_:22 in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023556758 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = 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)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Networked orientated standards for vocabulary publishing and exchange and proposals for terminological services and terminology registries will improve sharing and use of all knowledge organization systems in the networked information environment. This means that documentary classifications may also become more applicable for use outside their original domain of application. The paper summarises some characteristics common to documentary classifications and explains some terminological, functional and implementation aspects. The original purpose behind each classification scheme determines the functions that the vocabulary is designed to facilitate. These functions influence the structure, semantics and syntax, scheme coverage and format in which classification data are published and made available. The author suggests that attention should be paid to the differences between documentary classifications as these may determine their suitability for a certain purpose and may impose different requirements with respect to their use online. As we speak, many classifications are being created for knowledge organization and it may be important to promote expertise from the bibliographic domain with respect to building and using classification systems.
    Date
    22.12.2007 17:22:31
  4. 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 
    0.001743085 = product of:
  0.026146274 = sum of:
    0.026146274 = sum of:
      0.010441768 = weight(_text_:information in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.010441768 = score(doc=2346,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.20526241 = fieldWeight in 2346, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2346)
      0.015704507 = weight(_text_:22 in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.015704507 = score(doc=2346,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = 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)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Purpose - Potential and benefits of classification schemes and thesauri in building organizational taxonomies cannot be fully utilized by organizations. Empirical data of building an organizational taxonomy by the top-down approach of using classification schemes and thesauri appear to be lacking. The paper seeks to make a contribution in this regard. Design/methodology/approach - A case study of building an organizational taxonomy was conducted in the information studies domain for the Division of Information Studies at Nanyang Technology University, Singapore. The taxonomy was built by using the Dewey Decimal Classification, the Information Science Taxonomy, two information systems taxonomies, and three thesauri (ASIS&T, LISA, and ERIC). Findings - Classification schemes and thesauri were found to be helpful in creating the structure and categories related to the subject facet of the taxonomy, but organizational community sources had to be consulted and several methods had to be employed. The organizational activities and stakeholders' needs had to be identified to determine the objectives, facets, and the subject coverage of the taxonomy. Main categories were determined by identifying the stakeholders' interests and consulting organizational community sources and domain taxonomies. Category terms were selected from terminologies of classification schemes, domain taxonomies, and thesauri against the stakeholders' interests. Hierarchical structures of the main categories were constructed in line with the stakeholders' perspectives and the navigational role taking advantage of structures/term relationships from classification schemes and thesauri. Categories were determined in line with the concepts and the hierarchical levels. Format of categories were uniformed according to a commonly used standard. The consistency principle was employed to make the taxonomy structure and categories neater. Validation of the draft taxonomy through consultations with the stakeholders further refined the taxonomy. Originality/value - No similar study could be traced in the literature. The steps and methods used in the taxonomy development, and the information studies taxonomy itself, will be helpful for library and information schools and other similar organizations in their effort to develop taxonomies for organizing content and aiding navigation on organizational sites.
    Date
    7.11.2008 15:22:04
    Theme
    Information Resources Management
  5. Qin, J.: Evolving paradigms of knowledge representation and organization : a comparative study of classification, XML/DTD and ontology (2003) 0.00 
    0.0014190577 = product of:
  0.021285865 = sum of:
    0.021285865 = sum of:
      0.0055813594 = weight(_text_:information in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0055813594 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 2763, 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=2763)
      0.015704507 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.015704507 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = 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)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    The different points of views an knowledge representation and organization from various research communities reflect underlying philosophies and paradigms in these communities. This paper reviews differences and relations in knowledge representation and organization and generalizes four paradigms-integrative and disintegrative pragmatism and integrative and disintegrative epistemologism. Examples such as classification, XML schemas, and ontologies are compared based an how they specify concepts, build data models, and encode knowledge organization structures. 1. Introduction Knowledge representation (KR) is a term that several research communities use to refer to somewhat different aspects of the same research area. The artificial intelligence (AI) community considers KR as simply "something to do with writing down, in some language or communications medium, descriptions or pictures that correspond in some salient way to the world or a state of the world" (Duce & Ringland, 1988, p. 3). It emphasizes the ways in which knowledge can be encoded in a computer program (Bench-Capon, 1990). For the library and information science (LIS) community, KR is literally the synonym of knowledge organization, i.e., KR is referred to as the process of organizing knowledge into classifications, thesauri, or subject heading lists. KR has another meaning in LIS: it "encompasses every type and method of indexing, abstracting, cataloguing, classification, records management, bibliography and the creation of textual or bibliographic databases for information retrieval" (Anderson, 1996, p. 336). Adding the social dimension to knowledge organization, Hjoerland (1997) states that knowledge is a part of human activities and tied to the division of labor in society, which should be the primary organization of knowledge. Knowledge organization in LIS is secondary or derived, because knowledge is organized in learned institutions and publications. These different points of views an KR suggest that an essential difference in the understanding of KR between both AI and LIS lies in the source of representationwhether KR targets human activities or derivatives (knowledge produced) from human activities. This difference also decides their difference in purpose-in AI KR is mainly computer-application oriented or pragmatic and the result of representation is used to support decisions an human activities, while in LIS KR is conceptually oriented or abstract and the result of representation is used for access to derivatives from human activities.
    Date
    12. 9.2004 17:22:35
  6. Beghtol, C.: Response to Hjoerland and Nicolaisen (2004) 0.00 
    0.0010595259 = product of:
  0.007946444 = sum of:
    0.005504599 = weight(_text_:und in 3536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005504599 = score(doc=3536,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.085706696 = fieldWeight in 3536, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3536)
    0.0024418447 = product of:
      0.0048836893 = sum of:
        0.0048836893 = weight(_text_:information in 3536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0048836893 = score(doc=3536,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.0960027 = fieldWeight in 3536, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3536)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    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.
    Footnote
    Bezugnahme auf: 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. - Vgl. die Erwiderung von Nicolaisen und Hjoerland in KO 31(2004) no.3, S.199-201.
  7. Lin, W.-Y.C.: ¬The concept and applications of faceted classifications (2006) 0.00 
    0.0010469672 = product of:
  0.015704507 = sum of:
    0.015704507 = product of:
      0.031409014 = sum of:
        0.031409014 = weight(_text_:22 in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031409014 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = 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)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Date
    27. 5.2007 22:19:35
  8. Olson, H.A.: Sameness and difference : a cultural foundation of classification (2001) 0.00 
    9.1609627E-4 = product of:
  0.013741443 = sum of:
    0.013741443 = product of:
      0.027482886 = sum of:
        0.027482886 = weight(_text_:22 in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027482886 = score(doc=166,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = 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)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  9. Jacob, E.K.: Classification and categorization : a difference that makes a difference (2004) 0.00 
    5.6391995E-4 = product of:
  0.008458799 = sum of:
    0.008458799 = product of:
      0.016917598 = sum of:
        0.016917598 = weight(_text_:information in 834) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016917598 = score(doc=834,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.3325631 = fieldWeight in 834, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=834)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Examination of the systemic properties and forms of interaction that characterize classification and categorization reveals fundamental syntactic differences between the structure of classification systems and the structure of categorization systems. These distinctions lead to meaningful differences in the contexts within which information can be apprehended and influence the semantic information available to the individual. Structural and semantic differences between classification and categorization are differences that make a difference in the information environment by influencing the functional activities of an information system and by contributing to its constitution as an information environment.
    Footnote
    Artikel in einem Themenheft: The philosophy of information
  10. Karamuftuoglu, M.: Need for a systemic theory of classification in information science (2007) 0.00 
    5.2208843E-4 = product of:
  0.007831326 = sum of:
    0.007831326 = product of:
      0.015662652 = sum of:
        0.015662652 = weight(_text_:information in 615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015662652 = score(doc=615,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.3078936 = fieldWeight in 615, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=615)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    In the article, the author aims to clarify some of the issues surrounding the discussion regarding the usefulness of a substantive classification theory in information science (IS) by means of a broad perspective. By utilizing a concrete example from the High Accuracy Retrieval from Documents (HARD) track of a Text REtrieval Conference (TREC), the author suggests that the bag of words approach to information retrieval (IR) and techniques such as relevance feedback have significant limitations in expressing and resolving complex user information needs. He argues that a comprehensive analysis of information needs involves explicating often-implicit assumptions made by the authors of scholarly documents, as well as everyday texts such as news articles. He also argues that progress in IS can be furthered by developing general theories that are applicable to multiple domains. The concrete example of application of the domain-analytic approach to subject analysis in IS to the aesthetic evaluation of works of information arts is used to support this argument.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.13, S.1977-1987
  11. Grove, A.: Taxonomy (2009) 0.00 
    5.147861E-4 = product of:
  0.0077217915 = sum of:
    0.0077217915 = product of:
      0.015443583 = sum of:
        0.015443583 = weight(_text_:information in 3846) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015443583 = score(doc=3846,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.3035872 = fieldWeight in 3846, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3846)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Taxonomy reflects the human instinct to organize. Once limited in Western culture to certain natural sciences, in the early twenty-first century, it has expanded to many domains, practices, and uses. Domains now include almost anything of interest, but particularly those motivated by business needs. Practices and uses include description, analysis, prediction, mapping terminology, information access, representation of knowledge, and tool-building. For information science, taxonomy is a powerful tool for connecting information content with information consumers effectively and efficiently.
    Source
    Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates
  12. Beghtol, C.: ¬The facet concept as a universal principle of subdivision (2006) 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 1483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01381316 = score(doc=1483,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 1483, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1483)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Facet analysis has been one of the foremost contenders as a design principle for information retrieval classifications, both manual and electronic in the last fifty years. Evidence is presented that the facet concept has a claim to be considered as a method of subdivision that is cognitively available to human beings, regardless of language, culture, or academic discipline. The possibility that faceting is a universal method of subdivision enhances the claim that facet analysis as an unusually useful design principle for information retrieval classifications in any field. This possibility needs further investigation in an age when information access across boundaries is both necessary and possible.
    Source
    Knowledge organization, information systems and other essays: Professor A. Neelameghan Festschrift. Ed. by K.S. Raghavan and K.N. Prasad
  13. Mills, J.: Faceted classification and logical division in information retrieval (2004) 0.00 
    4.4124527E-4 = product of:
  0.0066186786 = sum of:
    0.0066186786 = product of:
      0.013237357 = sum of:
        0.013237357 = weight(_text_:information in 831) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013237357 = score(doc=831,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 831, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=831)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    The main object of the paper is to demonstrate in detail the role of classification in information retrieval (IR) and the design of classificatory structures by the application of logical division to all forms of the content of records, subject and imaginative. The natural product of such division is a faceted classification. The latter is seen not as a particular kind of library classification but the only viable form enabling the locating and relating of information to be optimally predictable. A detailed exposition of the practical steps in facet analysis is given, drawing on the experience of the new Bliss Classification (BC2). The continued existence of the library as a highly organized information store is assumed. But, it is argued, it must acknowledge the relevance of the revolution in library classification that has taken place. It considers also how alphabetically arranged subject indexes may utilize controlled use of categorical (generically inclusive) and syntactic relations to produce similarly predictable locating and relating systems for IR.
    Footnote
    Artikel in einem Themenheft: The philosophy of information
  14. Broughton, V.: ¬The need for a faceted classification as the basis of all methods of information retrieval (2006) 0.00 
    4.0279995E-4 = product of:
  0.006041999 = sum of:
    0.006041999 = product of:
      0.012083998 = sum of:
        0.012083998 = weight(_text_:information in 2874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012083998 = score(doc=2874,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.23754507 = fieldWeight in 2874, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2874)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The aim of this article is to estimate the impact of faceted classification and the faceted analytical method on the development of various information retrieval tools over the latter part of the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Design/methodology/approach - The article presents an examination of various subject access tools intended for retrieval of both print and digital materials to determine whether they exhibit features of faceted systems. Some attention is paid to use of the faceted approach as a means of structuring information on commercial web sites. The secondary and research literature is also surveyed for commentary on and evaluation of facet analysis as a basis for the building of vocabulary and conceptual tools. Findings - The study finds that faceted systems are now very common, with a major increase in their use over the last 15 years. Most LIS subject indexing tools (classifications, subject heading lists and thesauri) now demonstrate features of facet analysis to a greater or lesser degree. A faceted approach is frequently taken to the presentation of product information on commercial web sites, and there is an independent strand of theory and documentation related to this application. There is some significant research on semi-automatic indexing and retrieval (query expansion and query formulation) using facet analytical techniques. Originality/value - This article provides an overview of an important conceptual approach to information retrieval, and compares different understandings and applications of this methodology.
    Footnote
    Beitrag in einem Themenheft: UK library & information schools: UCL SLAIS.
  15. McCool, M.; St. Amant, K.: Field dependence and classification : implications for global information systems (2009) 0.00 
    3.987516E-4 = product of:
  0.005981274 = sum of:
    0.005981274 = product of:
      0.011962548 = sum of:
        0.011962548 = weight(_text_:information in 2854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011962548 = score(doc=2854,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 2854, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2854)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    This article describes research designed to assess the interaction between culture and classification. Mounting evidence in cross-cultural psychology has indicated that culture may affect classification, which is an important dimension to global information systems. Data were obtained through three classification tasks, two of which were adapted from recent studies in cross-cultural psychology. Data were collected from 36 participants, 19 from China and 17 from the United States. The results of this research indicate that Chinese participants appear to be more field dependent, which may be related to a cultural preference for relationships instead of categories.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.6, S.1258-1266
  16. Campbell, G.: ¬A queer eye for the faceted guy : how a universal classification principle can be applied to a distinct subculture (2004) 0.00 
    3.946617E-4 = product of:
  0.0059199254 = sum of:
    0.0059199254 = product of:
      0.011839851 = sum of:
        0.011839851 = weight(_text_:information in 2639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011839851 = score(doc=2639,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.23274568 = fieldWeight in 2639, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2639)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    The results of a small qualitative study of gay and lesbian information users suggest that facet analysis as it is increasingly practised in the field of information architecture provides a promising avenue for improving information access to gay and lesbian information resources. Findings indicated that gay and lesbian information users have an acute sense of categorization grounded in the need to identify gay-positive physical and social spaces, and in their finely-honed practices of detecting gay "facets" to general information themes. They are also, however, very flexible and adaptable in their application of gay-related facet values, which suggests that browsing systems will have to be designed with considerable care.
    Content
    1. Introduction The title of this paper is taken from a TV show which has gained considerable popularity in North America: A Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, in which a group of gay men subject a helpless straight male to a complete fashion makeover. In facet analysis, this would probably be seen as an "operation upon" something, and the Bliss Bibliographic Classification would place it roughly two-thirds of the way along its facet order, after "types" and "materials," but before "space" and "time." But the link between gay communities and facet analysis extends beyond the facetious title. As Web-based information resources for gay and lesbian users continue to grow, Web sites that cater to, or at least refrain from discriminating against gay and lesbian users are faced with a daunting challenge when trying to organize these diverse resources in a way that facilitates congenial browsing. And principles of faceted classification, with their emphasis an clear and consistent principles of subdivision and their care in defining the order of subdivisions, offer an important opportunity to use time-honoured classification principles to serve the growing needs of these communities. If faceted organization schemes are to work, however, we need to know more about gay and lesbian users, and how they categorize themselves and their information sources. This paper presents the results of an effort to learn more.
    Source
    Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine
  17. Olson, H.A.: ¬The ubiquitous hierarchy : an army to overcome the threat of a mob (2004) 0.00 
    3.7209064E-4 = product of:
  0.0055813594 = sum of:
    0.0055813594 = product of:
      0.011162719 = sum of:
        0.011162719 = weight(_text_:information in 833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011162719 = score(doc=833,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 833, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=833)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    This article explores the connections between Melvil Dewey and Hegelianism and Charles Cutter and the Scottish Common Sense philosophers. It traces the practice of hierarchy from these philosophical influences to Dewey and Cutter and their legacy to today's Dewey Decimal Classification and Library of Congress Subject Headings. The ubiquity of hierarchy is linked to Dewey's and Cutter's metaphor of organizing the mob of information into an orderly army using the tool of logic.
    Footnote
    Artikel in einem Themenheft: The philosophy of information
  18. Beghtol, C.: Classification for information retrieval and classification for knowledge discovery : relationships between "professional" and "naïve" classifications (2003) 0.00 
    3.6770437E-4 = product of:
  0.005515565 = sum of:
    0.005515565 = product of:
      0.01103113 = sum of:
        0.01103113 = weight(_text_:information in 3021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01103113 = score(doc=3021,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 3021, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3021)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Classification is a transdisciplinary activity that occurs during all human pursuits. Classificatory activity, however, serves different purposes in different situations. In information retrieval, the primary purpose of classification is to find knowledge that already exists, but one of the purposes of classification in other fields is to discover new knowledge. In this paper, classifications for information retrieval are called "professional" classifications because they are devised by people who have a professional interest in classification, and classifications for knowledge discovery are called "naive" classifications because they are devised by people who have no particular interest in studying classification as an end in itself. This paper compares the overall purposes and methods of these two kinds of classifications and provides a general model of the relationships between the two kinds of classificatory activity in the context of information studies. This model addresses issues of the influence of scholarly activity and communication an the creation and revision of classifications for the purposes of information retrieval and for the purposes of knowledge discovery. Further comparisons elucidate the relationships between the universality of classificatory methods and the specific purposes served by naive and professional classification systems.
  19. Hjoerland, B.; Nicolaisen, J.: Scientific and scholarly classifications are not "naïve" : a comment to Begthol (2003) (2004) 0.00 
    3.2888478E-4 = product of:
  0.0049332716 = sum of:
    0.0049332716 = product of:
      0.009866543 = sum of:
        0.009866543 = weight(_text_:information in 3023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009866543 = score(doc=3023,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 3023, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3023)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Relationships between Knowledge Organization in LIS and Scientific & Scholarly Classifications In her paper "Classification for Information Retrieval and Classification for Knowledge Discovery: Relationships between 'Professional' and 'Naive' Classifications" (KO v30, no.2, 2003), Beghtol outlines how Scholarly activities and research lead to classification systems which subsequently are disseminated in publications which are classified in information retrieval systems, retrieved by the users and again used in Scholarly activities and so on. We think this model is correct and that its point is important. What we are reacting to is the fact that Beghtol describes the Classifications developed by scholars as "naive" while she describes the Classifications developed by librarians and information scientists as "professional." We fear that this unfortunate terminology is rooted in deeply ar chored misjudgments about the relationships between scientific and Scholarly classification an the one side and LIS Classifications an the other. Only a correction of this misjudgment may give us in the field of knowledge organization a Chance to do a job that is not totally disrespected and disregarded by the rest of the intellectual world.
    Footnote
    Bezugnahme auf: Beghtol, C.: Classification for information retrieval and classification for knowledge discovery: relationships between 'professional' and 'naive' classifications" in: Knowledge organization. 30(2003), no.2, S.64-73; vgl. dazu auch die Erwiderung von C. Beghtol in: Knowledge organization. 31(2004) no.1, S.62-63.
  20. Hjoerland, B.: ¬The methodology of constructing classification schemes : a discussion of the state-of-the-art (2003) 0.00 
    3.2223997E-4 = product of:
  0.004833599 = sum of:
    0.004833599 = product of:
      0.009667198 = sum of:
        0.009667198 = weight(_text_:information in 2760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009667198 = score(doc=2760,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.19003606 = fieldWeight in 2760, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2760)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Special classifications have been somewhat neglected in KO compared to general classifications. The methodology of constructing special classifications is important, however, also for the methodology of constructing general classification schemes. The methodology of constructing special classifications can be regarded as one among about a dozen approaches to domain analysis. The methodology of (special) classification in LIS has been dominated by the rationalistic facet-analytic tradition, which, however, neglects the question of the empirical basis of classification. The empirical basis is much better grasped by, for example, bibliometric methods. Even the combination of rational and empirical methods is insufficient. This presentation will provide evidence for the necessity of historical and pragmatic methods for the methodology of classification and will point to the necessity of analyzing "paradigms". The presentation covers the methods of constructing classifications from Ranganathan to the design of ontologies in computer science and further to the recent "paradigm shift" in classification research. 1. Introduction Classification of a subject field is one among about eleven approaches to analyzing a domain that are specific for information science and in my opinion define the special competencies of information specialists (Hjoerland, 2002a). Classification and knowledge organization are commonly regarded as core qualifications of librarians and information specialists. Seen from this perspective one expects a firm methodological basis for the field. This paper tries to explore the state-of-the-art conceming the methodology of classification. 2. Classification: Science or non-science? As it is part of the curriculum at universities and subject in scientific journals and conferences like ISKO, orte expects classification/knowledge organization to be a scientific or scholarly activity and a scientific field. However, very often when information specialists classify or index documents and when they revise classification system, the methods seem to be rather ad hoc. Research libraries or scientific databases may employ people with adequate subject knowledge. When information scientists construct or evaluate systems, they very often elicit the knowledge from "experts" (Hjorland, 2002b, p. 260). Mostly no specific arguments are provided for the specific decisions in these processes.
    Theme
    Information Gateway

Authors

Languages

  • e 50
  • chi 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 45
  • m 4
  • s 2
  • el 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications