-
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
-
Svenonius, E.; Schmierer, H.P.: Current issues in the subject control of information (1977)
0.00
7.708376E-4 = product of:
0.0115625635 = sum of:
0.00705523 = weight(_text_:in in 5278) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00705523 = score(doc=5278,freq=2.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 5278, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5278)
0.004507334 = weight(_text_:s in 5278) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.004507334 = score(doc=5278,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.19219826 = fieldWeight in 5278, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5278)
0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
- Source
- Library quarterly. 47(1977), S.326-346
-
Svenonius, E.: Facet definition: a case study (1978)
0.00
5.974731E-4 = product of:
0.008962097 = sum of:
0.0061733257 = weight(_text_:in in 2623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0061733257 = score(doc=2623,freq=8.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 2623, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2623)
0.0027887707 = weight(_text_:s in 2623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0027887707 = score(doc=2623,freq=4.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.118916616 = fieldWeight in 2623, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2623)
0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
- Abstract
- Historical account of the sophisticated method of indexing developed by J.O. Kaiser (1896/97), a librarian at the Philadelphia Commercial Museum who established his index on cards (a novelty then) and distinguished his items according to the categories 'concrete', 'process', and 'country'. He also introduced "statement indexing" and rules to this end in order to permit the supply of "complete information" on a subject in a document. In summarizing these findings, the author stresses the necessitiy of establishing well-defined categories if an organization of terms is to serve e.g. information retrieval.
- Footnote
- Wiederabdruck in: Knowledge organization 43(2016) no.6, S.462-473.
- Source
- International classification. 5(1978), S.134-141
-
Svenonius, E.: Good indexing : a question of evidence (1975)
0.00
4.8788113E-4 = product of:
0.0073182164 = sum of:
0.0053462577 = weight(_text_:in in 1890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0053462577 = score(doc=1890,freq=6.0), product of:
0.029340398 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 1890, 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=1890)
0.0019719584 = weight(_text_:s in 1890) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0019719584 = score(doc=1890,freq=2.0), product of:
0.023451481 = queryWeight, product of:
1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
0.021569785 = queryNorm
0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 1890, 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=1890)
0.06666667 = coord(2/30)
- Abstract
- Different types of eveidence used in answering the question: what is good indexing? are considered. The evidence is presented in the context of the method on inquiry which produced mysticism, rationalism or empiricism. The method of mysticism is illustrated with reference to Cutter and the problem of specific entry. Ranganathan's approach to the controversy over alphabetical vs. classified arrangement is used to illustrate the method of rationalism. Cleverdon's work is taken as an example of the method of empiricism. In providing evidence for good indexing, the method of empiricism is found wanting. It is suggested that the method be improved by fundamental research into problems of sampling and definition, and that it be supplementend by other methods of inquiry
- Source
- Library science with a slant to documentation. 12(1975), S.33-39
