-
Svenonius, E.: Facets as semantic categories (1979)
0.00
0.00440294 = product of:
0.03302205 = sum of:
0.0121659525 = weight(_text_:und in 1427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0121659525 = score(doc=1427,freq=6.0), product of:
0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.2544829 = fieldWeight in 1427, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1427)
0.0069998945 = weight(_text_:in in 1427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0069998945 = score(doc=1427,freq=14.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.23857531 = fieldWeight in 1427, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1427)
0.0121659525 = weight(_text_:und in 1427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0121659525 = score(doc=1427,freq=6.0), product of:
0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.2544829 = fieldWeight in 1427, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1427)
0.0016902501 = weight(_text_:s in 1427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0016902501 = score(doc=1427,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 1427, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1427)
0.13333334 = coord(4/30)
- Abstract
- The paper looks at the semantic and syntactic components of facet definition. In synthetic classificatory languages, primitive terms are categorized into facets; facet information, when, is used in stating the syntactic rules for combining primitive terms into the acceptable (well-formed) complex expressions in the language. In other words, the structure of a synthetic classificatory language can be defined in terms of the facets recognized in the language and the syntactic rules employed by the language. Thus, facets are the "grammatical categories" of classificatory languages and their definition is the first step in formulating structural descriptions of such languages. As well, the study of how facets are defined can give some insight into how language is used to embody information
- Pages
- S.57-79
- Source
- Klassifikation und Erkenntnis II. Proc. der Plenarvorträge und der Sektion 2 u. 3 "Wissensdarstellung und Wissensvermittlung" der 3. Fachtagung der Gesellschaft für Klassifikation, Königstein/Ts., 5.-6.4.1979
-
Perreault, J.: Categories and relators : a new schema (1994)
0.00
0.003912841 = product of:
0.039128408 = sum of:
0.030909384 = weight(_text_:buch in 8863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030909384 = score(doc=8863,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10028592 = queryWeight, product of:
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.3082126 = fieldWeight in 8863, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.64937 = idf(docFreq=1149, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=8863)
0.0052914224 = weight(_text_:in in 8863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0052914224 = score(doc=8863,freq=8.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 8863, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=8863)
0.0029275995 = weight(_text_:s in 8863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0029275995 = score(doc=8863,freq=6.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.124836445 = fieldWeight in 8863, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=8863)
0.1 = coord(3/30)
- Abstract
- Based on the works of Aristotle, Ramon Lull, I. Kant and the experiences with relationships published in the works of S.R. Ranganathan, E.de Grolier, J. Mills, J.C. Costello, E. Wall, R. Pagès, A. Leroy, P. Braffort, M. Kervégant, J.C. Gardin and J. Farradane, categories and relationships were collected, analyzed, grouped and classified in a triadic way so that a scheme resulted by which 120 relationships could be defined and identified by their positions and their codes. The exercise was meant to create and supply a tool for the replacement of the non-significant relation symbol, the colon, in the UDC by a letter code which could express the actual relationship contained in a classificatory statement. Examples for their application illustrate different cases occuring
- Footnote
- Reprint von: Rev. Int. Doc. 32(1965) no.4, S.136-144; dto. als FID/CR report no.4 u. im Buch des Verf.: Towards a theory for UDC. London: Bingley 1969, S.119-148
- Source
- Knowledge organization. 21(1994) no.4, S.189-198
-
Gopinath, M.A.; Prasad, K.N.: Compatibility of the principles for design of thesaurus and classification scheme (1976)
0.00
0.003147656 = product of:
0.03147656 = sum of:
0.014048031 = weight(_text_:und in 2943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014048031 = score(doc=2943,freq=2.0), product of:
0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.29385152 = fieldWeight in 2943, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2943)
0.014048031 = weight(_text_:und in 2943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014048031 = score(doc=2943,freq=2.0), product of:
0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.29385152 = fieldWeight in 2943, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2943)
0.0033805002 = weight(_text_:s in 2943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0033805002 = score(doc=2943,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.14414869 = fieldWeight in 2943, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2943)
0.1 = coord(3/30)
- Source
- Library science with a slant to documentation. 13(1976) no.2, S.56-66
- Theme
- Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus
-
DIN 2331: Begriffssysteme und ihre Darstellung (1980)
0.00
0.003121785 = product of:
0.046826772 = sum of:
0.023413386 = weight(_text_:und in 1249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023413386 = score(doc=1249,freq=2.0), product of:
0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = 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)
0.023413386 = weight(_text_:und in 1249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023413386 = score(doc=1249,freq=2.0), product of:
0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = 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(2/30)
-
Engelien, G.: ¬Der Begriff der Klassifikation (1971)
0.00
0.002623047 = product of:
0.02623047 = sum of:
0.011706693 = weight(_text_:und in 3386) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011706693 = score(doc=3386,freq=2.0), product of:
0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.24487628 = fieldWeight in 3386, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3386)
0.011706693 = weight(_text_:und in 3386) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011706693 = score(doc=3386,freq=2.0), product of:
0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.24487628 = fieldWeight in 3386, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3386)
0.0028170836 = weight(_text_:s in 3386) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0028170836 = score(doc=3386,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.120123915 = fieldWeight in 3386, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3386)
0.1 = coord(3/30)
- Pages
- 176 S
- Series
- Forschungsberichte des Instituts für Kommunikationsforschung und Phonetik der Universität Bonn; Bd.36
-
Foskett, D.J.: Systems theory and its relevance to documentary classification (2017)
0.00
0.0026206372 = product of:
0.02620637 = sum of:
0.0052914224 = weight(_text_:in in 3176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0052914224 = score(doc=3176,freq=2.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 3176, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3176)
0.0033805002 = weight(_text_:s in 3176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0033805002 = score(doc=3176,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.14414869 = fieldWeight in 3176, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3176)
0.017534448 = product of:
0.035068896 = sum of:
0.035068896 = weight(_text_:22 in 3176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.035068896 = score(doc=3176,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3176, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3176)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.1 = coord(3/30)
- Date
- 6. 5.2017 18:46:22
- Footnote
- Wiederabdruck in: Knowledge organization. 44(2017) no.2, S.129-134.
-
Smiraglia, R.P.: ¬A brief introduction to facets in knowledge organization (2017)
0.00
0.0023731373 = product of:
0.023731373 = sum of:
0.0052914224 = weight(_text_:in in 1131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0052914224 = score(doc=1131,freq=2.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 1131, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1131)
0.015059452 = product of:
0.045178354 = sum of:
0.045178354 = weight(_text_:l in 1131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.045178354 = score(doc=1131,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.52696943 = fieldWeight in 1131, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1131)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.0033805002 = weight(_text_:s in 1131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0033805002 = score(doc=1131,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.14414869 = fieldWeight in 1131, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1131)
0.1 = coord(3/30)
- Pages
- S.1-6
- Source
- Dimensions of knowledge: facets for knowledge organization. Eds.: R.P. Smiraglia, u. H.-L. Lee
-
Smiraglia, R.P.: Facets for clustering and disambiguation : the domain discourse of facets in knowledge organization (2017)
0.00
0.0023731373 = product of:
0.023731373 = sum of:
0.0052914224 = weight(_text_:in in 4153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0052914224 = score(doc=4153,freq=2.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 4153, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4153)
0.015059452 = product of:
0.045178354 = sum of:
0.045178354 = weight(_text_:l in 4153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.045178354 = score(doc=4153,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.52696943 = fieldWeight in 4153, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4153)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.0033805002 = weight(_text_:s in 4153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0033805002 = score(doc=4153,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.14414869 = fieldWeight in 4153, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4153)
0.1 = coord(3/30)
- Pages
- S.115-138
- Source
- Dimensions of knowledge: facets for knowledge organization. Eds.: R.P. Smiraglia, u. H.-L. Lee
-
Vickery, B.C.: Faceted classification : A guide to construction and use of special schemes (1986)
0.00
0.0022385593 = product of:
0.03357839 = sum of:
0.03188814 = weight(_text_:deutsche in 2475) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03188814 = score(doc=2475,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10186133 = queryWeight, product of:
4.7224083 = idf(docFreq=1068, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.3130544 = fieldWeight in 2475, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.7224083 = idf(docFreq=1068, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2475)
0.0016902501 = weight(_text_:s in 2475) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0016902501 = score(doc=2475,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 2475, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2475)
0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
- Footnote
- Nicht leicht lesbar; es existiert auch eine (problematische) deutsche Übersetzung der Ausgabe von 1960: München: Verl. Dok. 1969
- Pages
- III,70 S
-
Beghtol, C.: Response to Hjoerland and Nicolaisen (2004)
0.00
0.002143437 = product of:
0.016075777 = sum of:
0.0040973425 = weight(_text_:und in 3536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0040973425 = score(doc=3536,freq=2.0), product of:
0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = 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)
0.0061733257 = weight(_text_:in in 3536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0061733257 = score(doc=3536,freq=32.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 3536, product of:
5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
32.0 = termFreq=32.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3536)
0.0040973425 = weight(_text_:und in 3536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0040973425 = score(doc=3536,freq=2.0), product of:
0.04780656 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = 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)
0.0017077664 = weight(_text_:s in 3536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0017077664 = score(doc=3536,freq=6.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.07282126 = fieldWeight in 3536, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3536)
0.13333334 = coord(4/30)
- 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.
Second, the paper posits that these different reasons for creating classification systems strongly influence the content and extent of the two kinds of classifications, but not necessarily their structures. By definition, naïve classifications for new knowledge have been developed for discrete areas of disciplinary inquiry in new areas of knowledge. These classifications do not attempt to classify the whole of that disciplinary area. That is, naïve classifications have a explicit purpose that is significantly different from the purpose of the major disciplinary classifications Hjoer-land and Nicolaisen provide as examples of classifications they think I discuss under the rubric of "naïve classifications" (e.g., classifications for the entire field of archaeology, biology, linguistics, music, psychology, etc.). My paper is not concerned with these important classifications for major disciplinary areas. Instead, it is concerned solely and specifically with scholarly classifications for small areas of new knowledge within these major disciplines (e.g., cloth of aresta, double harpsichords, child-rearing practices, anomalous phenomena, etc.). Thus, I have nowhere suggested or implied that the broad disciplinary classifications mentioned by Hjoerland and Nicolaisen are appropriately categorized as "naïve classifications." For example, I have not associated the Periodic System of the Elements with naïve classifications, as Hjoerland and Nicolaisen state that I have done. Indeed, broad classifications of this type fall well outside the definition of naïve classifications set out in my paper. In this case, too, 1 believe that Hjorland and Nicolaisen have misunderstood an important point in my paper. I agree with a number of points made in Hjorland and Nicolaisen's paper. In particular, I agree that researchers in the knowledge organization field should adhere to the highest standards of scholarly and scientific precision. For that reason, I am glad to have had the opportunity to respond to their 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.
- Source
- Knowledge organization. 31(2004) no.1, S.62-63
-
Connaway, L.S.; Sievert, M.C.: Comparison of three classification systems for information on health insurance (1996)
0.00
0.002099853 = product of:
0.02099853 = sum of:
0.00705523 = weight(_text_:in in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00705523 = score(doc=7242,freq=8.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 7242, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7242)
0.002253667 = weight(_text_:s in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.002253667 = score(doc=7242,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 7242, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7242)
0.011689632 = product of:
0.023379264 = sum of:
0.023379264 = weight(_text_:22 in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023379264 = score(doc=7242,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7242, 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=7242)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.1 = coord(3/30)
- Abstract
- Reports results of a comparative study of 3 classification schemes: LCC, DDC and NLM Classification to determine their effectiveness in classifying materials on health insurance. Examined 2 hypotheses: that there would be no differences in the scatter of the 3 classification schemes; and that there would be overlap between all 3 schemes but no difference in the classes into which the subject was placed. There was subject scatter in all 3 classification schemes and litlle overlap between the 3 systems
- Date
- 22. 4.1997 21:10:19
- Source
- Cataloging and classification quarterly. 23(1996) no.2, S.89-104
-
Vukadin, A.; Slavic, A.: Challenges of facet analysis and concept placement in Universal Classifications : the example of architecture in UDC (2014)
0.00
0.0019622487 = product of:
0.019622486 = sum of:
0.009165013 = weight(_text_:in in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009165013 = score(doc=1428,freq=24.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.3123684 = fieldWeight in 1428, product of:
4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
24.0 = termFreq=24.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1428)
0.0016902501 = weight(_text_:s in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0016902501 = score(doc=1428,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 1428, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1428)
0.008767224 = product of:
0.017534448 = sum of:
0.017534448 = weight(_text_:22 in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017534448 = score(doc=1428,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1428, 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=1428)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.1 = coord(3/30)
- Abstract
- The paper discusses the challenges of faceted vocabulary organization in universal classifications which treat the universe of knowledge as a coherent whole and in which the concepts and subjects in different disciplines are shared, related and combined. The authors illustrate the challenges of the facet analytical approach using, as an example, the revision of class 72 in UDC. The paper reports on the research undertaken in 2013 as preparation for the revision. This consisted of analysis of concept organization in the UDC schedules in comparison with the Art & Architecture Thesaurus and class W of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification. The paper illustrates how such research can contribute to a better understanding of the field and may lead to improvements in the facet structure of this segment of the UDC vocabulary.
- Pages
- S.236-243
- Series
- Advances in knowledge organization; vol. 14
- Source
- Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik
-
Lin, W.-Y.C.: ¬The concept and applications of faceted classifications (2006)
0.00
0.0018932101 = product of:
0.0189321 = sum of:
0.004988801 = weight(_text_:in in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.004988801 = score(doc=5083,freq=4.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 5083, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5083)
0.002253667 = weight(_text_:s in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.002253667 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 5083, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5083)
0.011689632 = product of:
0.023379264 = sum of:
0.023379264 = weight(_text_:22 in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023379264 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = 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)
0.1 = coord(3/30)
- Abstract
- The concept of faceted classification has its long history and importance in the human civilization. Recently, more and more consumer Web sites adopt the idea of facet analysis to organize and display their products or services. The aim of this article is to review the origin and develpment of faceted classification, as well as its concepts, essence, advantage and limitation. Further, the applications of faceted classification in various domians have been explored.
- Date
- 27. 5.2007 22:19:35
- Source
- Journal of educational media and library sciences. 47(2006) no.2, S.153-171
-
Winske, E.: ¬The development and structure of an urban, regional, and local documents classification scheme (1996)
0.00
0.0017546645 = product of:
0.017546644 = sum of:
0.0053462577 = weight(_text_:in in 7241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0053462577 = score(doc=7241,freq=6.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 7241, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7241)
0.0019719584 = weight(_text_:s in 7241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0019719584 = score(doc=7241,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 7241, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7241)
0.010228428 = product of:
0.020456856 = sum of:
0.020456856 = weight(_text_:22 in 7241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020456856 = score(doc=7241,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 7241, 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=7241)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.1 = coord(3/30)
- Abstract
- Discusses the reasons for the decision, taken at Florida International University Library to develop an in house classification system for their local documents collections. Reviews the structures of existing classification systems, noting their strengths and weaknesses in relation to the development of an in house system and describes the 5 components of the new system; geography, subject categories, extensions for population group and/or function, extensions for type of publication, and title/series designator
- Footnote
- Paper presented at conference on 'Local documents, a new classification scheme' at the Research Caucus of the Florida Library Association Annual Conference, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 22 Apr 95
- Source
- Journal of educational media and library sciences. 34(1996) no.1, S.19-34
-
Olson, H.A.: Sameness and difference : a cultural foundation of classification (2001)
0.00
0.0017546645 = product of:
0.017546644 = sum of:
0.0053462577 = weight(_text_:in in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0053462577 = score(doc=166,freq=6.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 166, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=166)
0.0019719584 = weight(_text_:s in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0019719584 = score(doc=166,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 166, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=166)
0.010228428 = product of:
0.020456856 = sum of:
0.020456856 = weight(_text_:22 in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.020456856 = score(doc=166,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = 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)
0.1 = coord(3/30)
- Abstract
- The idea of sameness is used to gather material in classifications. However, it is also used to separate what is different. Sameness and difference as guiding principles of classification seem obvious but are actually fundamental characteristics specifically related to Western culture. Sameness is not a singular factor, but has the potential to represent multiple characteristics or facets. This article explores the ramifications of which characteristics are used to define classifications and in what order. It explains the primacy of division by discipline, its origins in Western philosophy, and the cultural specificity that results. The Dewey Decimal Classification is used as an example throughout.
- Date
- 10. 9.2000 17:38:22
- Source
- Library resources and technical services. 45(2001) no.3, S.115-122
-
Belayche, C.: ¬A propos de la classification de Dewey (1997)
0.00
0.0017470915 = product of:
0.017470915 = sum of:
0.003527615 = weight(_text_:in in 1171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.003527615 = score(doc=1171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 1171, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1171)
0.002253667 = weight(_text_:s in 1171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.002253667 = score(doc=1171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 1171, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1171)
0.011689632 = product of:
0.023379264 = sum of:
0.023379264 = weight(_text_:22 in 1171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023379264 = score(doc=1171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1171, 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=1171)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.1 = coord(3/30)
- Abstract
- All classifications are based on ideologies and Dewey is marked by its author's origins in 19th century North America. Subsequent revisions indicate changed ways of understanding the world. Section 157 (psycho-pathology) is now included with 616.89 (mental troubles), reflecting the move to a genetic-based approach. Table 5 (racial, ethnic and national groups) is however unchanged, despite changing views on such categorisation
- Source
- Bulletin d'informations de l'Association des Bibliothecaires Francais. 1997, no.175, S.22-23
-
Gnoli, C.: Classifying phenomena : part 4: themes and rhemes (2018)
0.00
0.001745737 = product of:
0.01745737 = sum of:
0.0069998945 = weight(_text_:in in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0069998945 = score(doc=4152,freq=14.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.23857531 = fieldWeight in 4152, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4152)
0.0016902501 = weight(_text_:s in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0016902501 = score(doc=4152,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 4152, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4152)
0.008767224 = product of:
0.017534448 = sum of:
0.017534448 = weight(_text_:22 in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017534448 = score(doc=4152,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4152, 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=4152)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.1 = coord(3/30)
- Abstract
- This is the fourth in a series of papers on classification based on phenomena instead of disciplines. Together with types, levels and facets that have been discussed in the previous parts, themes and rhemes are further structural components of such a classification. In a statement or in a longer document, a base theme and several particular themes can be identified. Base theme should be cited first in a classmark, followed by particular themes, each with its own facets. In some cases, rhemes can also be expressed, that is new information provided about a theme, converting an abstract statement ("wolves, affected by cervids") into a claim that some thing actually occurs ("wolves are affected by cervids"). In the Integrative Levels Classification rhemes can be expressed by special deictic classes, including those for actual specimens, anaphoras, unknown values, conjunctions and spans, whole universe, anthropocentric favoured classes, and favoured host classes. These features, together with rules for pronounciation, make a classification of phenomena a true language, that may be suitable for many uses.
- Date
- 17. 2.2018 18:22:25
- Source
- Knowledge organization. 45(2018) no.1, S.43-53
-
Jacob, E.K.: Proposal for a classification of classifications built on Beghtol's distinction between "Naïve Classification" and "Professional Classification" (2010)
0.00
0.0016449022 = product of:
0.016449021 = sum of:
0.0052914224 = weight(_text_:in in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0052914224 = score(doc=2945,freq=8.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.18034597 = fieldWeight in 2945, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2945)
0.002390375 = weight(_text_:s in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.002390375 = score(doc=2945,freq=4.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.101928525 = fieldWeight in 2945, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2945)
0.008767224 = product of:
0.017534448 = sum of:
0.017534448 = weight(_text_:22 in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017534448 = score(doc=2945,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2945, 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=2945)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.1 = coord(3/30)
- Abstract
- Argues that Beghtol's (2003) use of the terms "naive classification" and "professional classification" is valid because they are nominal definitions and that the distinction between these two types of classification points up the need for researchers in knowledge organization to broaden their scope beyond traditional classification systems intended for information retrieval. Argues that work by Beghtol (2003), Kwasnik (1999) and Bailey (1994) offer direction for the development of a classification of classifications based on the pragmatic dimensions of extant classification systems. Bezugnahme auf: Beghtol, C.: Naïve classification systems and the global information society. In: Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine. Würzburg: Ergon Verlag 2004. S.19-22. (Advances in knowledge organization; vol.9)
- Content
- Beitrag in einem Special issue: A Festschrift for Clare Beghtol
- Source
- Knowledge organization. 37(2010) no.2, S.111-120
-
Howarth, L.C.; Jansen, E.H.: Towards a typology of warrant for 21st century knowledge organization systems (2014)
0.00
0.0016373465 = product of:
0.016373465 = sum of:
0.005915991 = weight(_text_:in in 1425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.005915991 = score(doc=1425,freq=10.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.20163295 = fieldWeight in 1425, product of:
3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
10.0 = termFreq=10.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1425)
0.0016902501 = weight(_text_:s in 1425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0016902501 = score(doc=1425,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 1425, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1425)
0.008767224 = product of:
0.017534448 = sum of:
0.017534448 = weight(_text_:22 in 1425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017534448 = score(doc=1425,freq=2.0), product of:
0.07553371 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1425, 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=1425)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.1 = coord(3/30)
- Abstract
- This paper returns to Beghtol's (1986) insightful typology of warrant to consider an empirical example of a traditional top-down hierarchical classification system as it continues to evolve in the early 21st century. Our examination considers there may be multiple warrants identified among the processes of design and the relationships to users of the National Occupational Classification (NOC), the standard occupational classification system published in Canada. We argue that this shift in semantic warrant signals a transition for traditional knowledge organization systems, and that warrant continues to be a relevant analytical concept and organizing principle, both within and beyond the domain of bibliographic control.
- Pages
- S.216-221
- Series
- Advances in knowledge organization; vol. 14
- Source
- Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik
-
Mayor, C.; Robinson, L.: Ontological realism, concepts and classification in molecular biology : development and application of the gene ontology (2014)
0.00
0.0016219871 = product of:
0.016219871 = sum of:
0.0069998945 = weight(_text_:in in 1771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0069998945 = score(doc=1771,freq=14.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.23857531 = fieldWeight in 1771, product of:
3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
14.0 = termFreq=14.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1771)
0.007529726 = product of:
0.022589177 = sum of:
0.022589177 = weight(_text_:l in 1771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.022589177 = score(doc=1771,freq=2.0), product of:
0.0857324 = queryWeight, product of:
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.26348472 = fieldWeight in 1771, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.9746525 = idf(docFreq=2257, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1771)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.0016902501 = weight(_text_:s in 1771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0016902501 = score(doc=1771,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 1771, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1771)
0.1 = coord(3/30)
- Abstract
- Purpose - The purpose of this article is to evaluate the development and use of the gene ontology (GO), a scientific vocabulary widely used in molecular biology databases, with particular reference to the relation between the theoretical basis of the GO, and the pragmatics of its application. Design/methodology/approach - The study uses a combination of bibliometric analysis, content analysis and discourse analysis. These analyses focus on details of the ways in which the terms of the ontology are amended and deleted, and in which they are applied by users. Findings - Although the GO is explicitly based on an objective realist epistemology, a considerable extent of subjectivity and social factors are evident in its development and use. It is concluded that bio-ontologies could beneficially be extended to be pluralist, while remaining objective, taking a view of concepts closer to that of more traditional controlled vocabularies. Originality/value - This is one of very few studies which evaluate the development of a formal ontology in relation to its conceptual foundations, and the first to consider the GO in this way.
- Source
- Journal of documentation. 70(2014) no.1, S.173-193
