-
Gopinath, M.A.; Prasad, K.N.: Compatibility of the principles for design of thesaurus and classification scheme (1976)
0.01
0.010017176 = product of:
0.06678117 = sum of:
0.018752426 = weight(_text_:und in 2943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018752426 = score(doc=2943,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06381599 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = 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)
0.018752426 = weight(_text_:und in 2943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.018752426 = score(doc=2943,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06381599 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = 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)
0.029276319 = weight(_text_:des in 2943) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.029276319 = score(doc=2943,freq=2.0), product of:
0.079736836 = queryWeight, product of:
2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.36716178 = fieldWeight in 2943, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2943)
0.15 = coord(3/20)
- Theme
- Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus
-
Belayche, C.: ¬A propos de la classification de Dewey (1997)
0.01
0.0071872757 = product of:
0.047915168 = sum of:
0.027601978 = weight(_text_:des in 1171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027601978 = score(doc=1171,freq=4.0), product of:
0.079736836 = queryWeight, product of:
2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.34616345 = fieldWeight in 1171, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1171)
0.00470894 = weight(_text_:in in 1171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00470894 = score(doc=1171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = 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)
0.015604248 = product of:
0.031208497 = sum of:
0.031208497 = weight(_text_:22 in 1171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031208497 = score(doc=1171,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = 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)
0.15 = coord(3/20)
- 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
- Footnote
- Übers. des Titels: Concerning the Dewey classification
- Source
- Bulletin d'informations de l'Association des Bibliothecaires Francais. 1997, no.175, S.22-23
-
DIN 2331: Begriffssysteme und ihre Darstellung (1980)
0.01
0.0062508094 = product of:
0.06250809 = sum of:
0.031254046 = weight(_text_:und in 1249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031254046 = score(doc=1249,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06381599 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = 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)
0.031254046 = weight(_text_:und in 1249) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031254046 = score(doc=1249,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06381599 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = 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)
0.1 = coord(2/20)
-
Kluth, R.: Schlagwortindex und Schlagwortkatalog (1957)
0.01
0.0061879847 = product of:
0.061879847 = sum of:
0.030939924 = weight(_text_:und in 273) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030939924 = score(doc=273,freq=4.0), product of:
0.06381599 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.4848303 = fieldWeight in 273, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=273)
0.030939924 = weight(_text_:und in 273) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030939924 = score(doc=273,freq=4.0), product of:
0.06381599 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.4848303 = fieldWeight in 273, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=273)
0.1 = coord(2/20)
- Source
- Zeitschrift für Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie. 4(1957), S.169-176
-
Santoro, M.: Ripensare la CDU (1995)
0.00
0.0048464276 = product of:
0.032309517 = sum of:
0.011111342 = weight(_text_:der in 4940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.011111342 = score(doc=4940,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06431698 = queryWeight, product of:
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.17275909 = fieldWeight in 4940, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4940)
0.017077852 = weight(_text_:des in 4940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017077852 = score(doc=4940,freq=2.0), product of:
0.079736836 = queryWeight, product of:
2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.2141777 = fieldWeight in 4940, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4940)
0.0041203224 = weight(_text_:in in 4940) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0041203224 = score(doc=4940,freq=2.0), product of:
0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 4940, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4940)
0.15 = coord(3/20)
- Abstract
- A detailed examination of the UDC's history, function and future prospects. Among topics discussed are: the early pioneering work of P. Otlet and H. LaFontaine; the development of Colon Classification; the 'UDC versus switching language' debate in the 1970s; the FID standard reference code project; and the recent scheme by Williamson and McIlwaine to restructure UDC completely, converting it into a Colon Classification and also creating a thesaurus drawn from the same classification. Comments that UDC, far from being a 'prehistoric monster', is becoming a sort of test laboratory for developing new and interesting documentation structures
- Footnote
- Übers. des Titels: Rethinking UDC
- Theme
- Geschichte der Klassifikationssysteme
-
Bliss, H.E.: ¬A bibliographic classification : principles and definitions (1985)
0.00
0.0039956435 = product of:
0.026637623 = sum of:
0.0063493387 = weight(_text_:der in 3621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0063493387 = score(doc=3621,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06431698 = queryWeight, product of:
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.09871948 = fieldWeight in 3621, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3621)
0.009758773 = weight(_text_:des in 3621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009758773 = score(doc=3621,freq=2.0), product of:
0.079736836 = queryWeight, product of:
2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.12238726 = fieldWeight in 3621, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3621)
0.010529511 = weight(_text_:in in 3621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.010529511 = score(doc=3621,freq=40.0), product of:
0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.26884392 = fieldWeight in 3621, product of:
6.3245554 = tf(freq=40.0), with freq of:
40.0 = termFreq=40.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3621)
0.15 = coord(3/20)
- Abstract
- Henry Evelyn Bliss (1870-1955) devoted several decades of his life to the study of classification and the development of the Bibliographic Classification scheme while serving as a librarian in the College of the City of New York. In the course of the development of the Bibliographic Classification, Bliss developed a body of classification theory published in a number of articles and books, among which the best known are The Organization of Knowledge and the System of the Sciences (1929), Organization of Knowledge in Libraries and the Subject Approach to Books (1933; 2nd ed., 1939), and the lengthy preface to A Bibliographic Classification (Volumes 1-2, 1940; 2nd ed., 1952). In developing the Bibliographic Classification, Bliss carefully established its philosophical and theoretical basis, more so than was attempted by the makers of other classification schemes, with the possible exception of S. R. Ranganathan (q.v.) and his Colon Classification. The basic principles established by Bliss for the Bibliographic Classification are: consensus, collocation of related subjects, subordination of special to general and gradation in specialty, and the relativity of classes and of classification (hence alternative location and alternative treatment). In the preface to the schedules of A Bibliographic Classification, Bliss spells out the general principles of classification as weIl as principles specifically related to his scheme. The first volume of the schedules appeared in 1940. In 1952, he issued a second edition of the volume with a rewritten preface, from which the following excerpt is taken, and with the addition of a "Concise Synopsis," which is also included here to illustrate the principles of classificatory structure. In the excerpt reprinted below, Bliss discusses the correlation between classes, concepts, and terms, as weIl as the hierarchical structure basic to his classification scheme. In his discussion of cross-classification, Bliss recognizes the "polydimensional" nature of classification and the difficulties inherent in the two-dimensional approach which is characteristic of linear classification. This is one of the earliest works in which the multidimensional nature of classification is recognized. The Bibliographic Classification did not meet with great success in the United States because the Dewey Decimal Classification and the Library of Congress Classification were already weIl ensconced in American libraries by then. Nonetheless, it attracted considerable attention in the British Commonwealth and elsewhere in the world. A committee was formed in Britain which later became the Bliss Classification Association. A faceted edition of the scheme has been in preparation under the direction of J. Mills and V. Broughton. Several parts of this new edition, entitled Bliss Bibliographic Classification, have been published.
- Footnote
- Nachdruck des Originalartikels mit Kommentierung durch die Herausgeber
Original in: Bliss, H.E.: A bibliographic classification extended by systematic auxuliary schedules for composite specification and notation. vols 1-2. 2nd ed. New York: Wilson 1952. S.3-11.
- Theme
- Geschichte der Klassifikationssysteme
-
Restrepo, G.: Zeit für eine neue Ordnung? (2022)
0.00
0.0037632869 = product of:
0.037632868 = sum of:
0.031746693 = weight(_text_:der in 361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031746693 = score(doc=361,freq=8.0), product of:
0.06431698 = queryWeight, product of:
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.4935974 = fieldWeight in 361, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=361)
0.005886175 = weight(_text_:in in 361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.005886175 = score(doc=361,freq=2.0), product of:
0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 361, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=361)
0.1 = coord(2/20)
- Abstract
- Das Periodensystem der Elemente steht seit über 100 Jahren für eine verlässliche Ordnung in der verwirrenden Vielfalt der chemischen Substanzen. Doch angesichts neuer Entdeckungen muss man sich fragen: Gibt es vielleicht etwas Besseres?
- Source
- Spektrum der Wissenschaft. 2022, H.5, S.80-85
-
Ranganathan, S.R.: Facet analysis: fundamental categories (1985)
0.00
0.0033883292 = product of:
0.02258886 = sum of:
0.005555671 = weight(_text_:der in 3631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.005555671 = score(doc=3631,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06431698 = queryWeight, product of:
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.08637954 = fieldWeight in 3631, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3631)
0.008538926 = weight(_text_:des in 3631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008538926 = score(doc=3631,freq=2.0), product of:
0.079736836 = queryWeight, product of:
2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.10708885 = fieldWeight in 3631, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3631)
0.008494263 = weight(_text_:in in 3631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008494263 = score(doc=3631,freq=34.0), product of:
0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.2168791 = fieldWeight in 3631, product of:
5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
34.0 = termFreq=34.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3631)
0.15 = coord(3/20)
- Abstract
- Among the theorists in the field of subject analysis in the twentieth century, none has been more influential than S. R. Ranganathan (1892-1972) of India, a mathematician by training who turned to librarianship and made some of the most far-reaching contributions to the theory of librarianship in general and subject analysis in particular. Dissatisfied with both the Dewey Decimal Classification and the Universal Decimal Classification, Ranganathan set out to develop his own system. His Colon Classification was first published in 1933 and went through six editions; the seventh edition was in progress when Ranganathan died in 1972. In the course of developing the Colon Classification, Ranganathan formulated a body of classification theory which was published in numerous writings, of which the best known are Elements of Library Classification (1945; 3rd ed., 1962) and Prolegomena to Library Classification (1967). Among the principles Ranganathan established, the most powerful and influential are those relating to facet analysis. Ranganathan demonstrated that facet analysis (breaking down subjects into their component parts) and synthesis (recombining these parts to fit the documents) provide the most viable approach to representing the contents of documents. Although the idea and use of facets, though not always called by that name, have been present for a long time (for instance, in the Dewey Decimal Classification and Charles A. Cutter's Expansive Classification), Ranganathan was the person who systematized the ideas and established principles for them. For his Colon Classification, Ranganathan identified five fundamental categories: Personality (P), Material (M), Energy (E), Space (S) and Time (T) and the citation order PMEST based an the idea of decreasing concreteness.
The Colon Classification has not been widely adopted; however, the theory of facet analysis and synthesis Ranganathan developed has proved to be most influential. Although many theorists of subject analysis do not totally agree with his fundamental categories or citation order, Ranganathan's concept of facet analysis and synthesis has provided a viable method and a framework for approaching subject analysis and has become the foundation of subject analysis in the twentieth century. In this sense, his theory laid the groundwork for later investigations and inquiries into the nature of subject and classificatory categories and citation order. His influence is felt in all modern classification schemes and indexing systems. This is attested to by the citations to his ideas and works in numerous papers included in this collection and by the fact that other modern classification systems such as the Dewey Decimal Classification and the Bliss Bibliographic Classification have become increasingly faceted in recent editions. The following chapter from Elements of Library Classification represents one of Ranganathan's many expositions of facet analysis and fundamental categories. It is chosen because of its clarity of expression and comprehensibility (many readers find the majority of his writings difficult to understand).
- Footnote
- Nachdruck des Originalartikels mit Kommentierung durch die Herausgeber
Original in: Ranganathan, S.R.: Elements of library classification. 3rd ed. Bombay: Asia Publishing House 1962. S.82-89
- Theme
- Geschichte der Klassifikationssysteme
-
Foskett, D.J.: Systems theory and its relevance to documentary classification (2017)
0.00
0.003046978 = product of:
0.03046978 = sum of:
0.00706341 = weight(_text_:in in 3176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00706341 = score(doc=3176,freq=2.0), product of:
0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = 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)
0.023406371 = product of:
0.046812743 = sum of:
0.046812743 = weight(_text_:22 in 3176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.046812743 = score(doc=3176,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = 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(2/20)
- Date
- 6. 5.2017 18:46:22
- Footnote
- Wiederabdruck in: Knowledge organization. 44(2017) no.2, S.129-134.
-
Beghtol, C.: Response to Hjoerland and Nicolaisen (2004)
0.00
0.0028769341 = product of:
0.01917956 = sum of:
0.0054694577 = weight(_text_:und in 3536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0054694577 = score(doc=3536,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06381599 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = 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)
0.0054694577 = weight(_text_:und in 3536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0054694577 = score(doc=3536,freq=2.0), product of:
0.06381599 = queryWeight, product of:
2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = 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)
0.008240645 = weight(_text_:in in 3536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008240645 = score(doc=3536,freq=32.0), product of:
0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = 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)
0.15 = coord(3/20)
- 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.
-
Grimaldi, T.: ¬L'indicizzazione dal punto di vista cognitivo (II) (1996)
0.00
0.002767367 = product of:
0.027673671 = sum of:
0.019517547 = weight(_text_:des in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.019517547 = score(doc=992,freq=2.0), product of:
0.079736836 = queryWeight, product of:
2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.24477452 = fieldWeight in 992, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=992)
0.0081561245 = weight(_text_:in in 992) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0081561245 = score(doc=992,freq=6.0), product of:
0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.2082456 = fieldWeight in 992, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=992)
0.1 = coord(2/20)
- Abstract
- In relation to indexing, one of the chief implications of cognitive epistemology is the necessity for redefining knowledge representation concepts for information filing and retrieval purposes. Such a redefinition involves abandoning the traditional, hierarchical, closed-structure classification model. Considers the following in detail: a semiotic critique of classification principles; Ranganathan's classification theory; Ranganathan and cognitive epistemology; and some reflections on the DDC and the Bliss Bibliographic Classification
- Content
- T.1 in: Bibliotecario 1995, no.1, S.277-301
- Footnote
- Übers. des Titels: Indexing from the cognitive viewpoint (II)
-
Garcia Marco, F.J.: Contexto y determinantes funcionales de la clasificacion documental (1996)
0.00
0.0025318495 = product of:
0.025318496 = sum of:
0.017077852 = weight(_text_:des in 380) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.017077852 = score(doc=380,freq=2.0), product of:
0.079736836 = queryWeight, product of:
2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.2141777 = fieldWeight in 380, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=380)
0.008240645 = weight(_text_:in in 380) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.008240645 = score(doc=380,freq=8.0), product of:
0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.21040362 = fieldWeight in 380, 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=380)
0.1 = coord(2/20)
- Abstract
- Considers classification in the context of the information retrieval chain, a communication process. Defines classification as an heuristic methodology, which is being improved through scientific methodology. It is also an indexing process, setting each document in a systematic order, in a predictable place and therefore able to be efficiently retrieved. Classification appears to be determined by 4 factors: the structure of the world of documents, a function of the world of knowledge; the classification tools that allow us to codify them; the way in which people create and use classifications; and the features of the information unit
- Footnote
- Übers. des Titels: Functional context and factors of the classification process
-
Connaway, L.S.; Sievert, M.C.: Comparison of three classification systems for information on health insurance (1996)
0.00
0.002502213 = product of:
0.025022129 = sum of:
0.00941788 = weight(_text_:in in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00941788 = score(doc=7242,freq=8.0), product of:
0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = 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)
0.015604248 = product of:
0.031208497 = sum of:
0.031208497 = weight(_text_:22 in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031208497 = score(doc=7242,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = 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(2/20)
- 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
-
Vukadin, A.; Slavic, A.: Challenges of facet analysis and concept placement in Universal Classifications : the example of architecture in UDC (2014)
0.00
0.0023937372 = product of:
0.02393737 = sum of:
0.012234186 = weight(_text_:in in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.012234186 = score(doc=1428,freq=24.0), product of:
0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = 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)
0.011703186 = product of:
0.023406371 = sum of:
0.023406371 = weight(_text_:22 in 1428) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023406371 = score(doc=1428,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = 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(2/20)
- 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.
- 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
0.0022263695 = product of:
0.022263695 = sum of:
0.006659447 = weight(_text_:in in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.006659447 = score(doc=5083,freq=4.0), product of:
0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = 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)
0.015604248 = product of:
0.031208497 = sum of:
0.031208497 = weight(_text_:22 in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.031208497 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = 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(2/20)
- 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
-
Perreault, J.: Categories and relators : a new schema (1994)
0.00
0.002170157 = product of:
0.021701569 = sum of:
0.014638159 = weight(_text_:des in 8863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.014638159 = score(doc=8863,freq=2.0), product of:
0.079736836 = queryWeight, product of:
2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = queryNorm
0.18358089 = fieldWeight in 8863, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
2.7693076 = idf(docFreq=7536, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=8863)
0.00706341 = weight(_text_:in in 8863) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00706341 = score(doc=8863,freq=8.0), product of:
0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = 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)
0.1 = coord(2/20)
- 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
-
Gnoli, C.: Classifying phenomena : part 4: themes and rhemes (2018)
0.00
0.0021047199 = product of:
0.0210472 = sum of:
0.009344013 = weight(_text_:in in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.009344013 = score(doc=4152,freq=14.0), product of:
0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = 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)
0.011703186 = product of:
0.023406371 = sum of:
0.023406371 = weight(_text_:22 in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023406371 = score(doc=4152,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = 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(2/20)
- 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
-
Winske, E.: ¬The development and structure of an urban, regional, and local documents classification scheme (1996)
0.00
0.0020790326 = product of:
0.020790325 = sum of:
0.0071366085 = weight(_text_:in in 7241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0071366085 = score(doc=7241,freq=6.0), product of:
0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = 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)
0.013653717 = product of:
0.027307434 = sum of:
0.027307434 = weight(_text_:22 in 7241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027307434 = score(doc=7241,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = 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(2/20)
- 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
-
Olson, H.A.: Sameness and difference : a cultural foundation of classification (2001)
0.00
0.0020790326 = product of:
0.020790325 = sum of:
0.0071366085 = weight(_text_:in in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0071366085 = score(doc=166,freq=6.0), product of:
0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = 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)
0.013653717 = product of:
0.027307434 = sum of:
0.027307434 = weight(_text_:22 in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027307434 = score(doc=166,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = 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(2/20)
- 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
-
Howarth, L.C.; Jansen, E.H.: Towards a typology of warrant for 21st century knowledge organization systems (2014)
0.00
0.001960032 = product of:
0.019600319 = sum of:
0.007897133 = weight(_text_:in in 1425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.007897133 = score(doc=1425,freq=10.0), product of:
0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = 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)
0.011703186 = product of:
0.023406371 = sum of:
0.023406371 = weight(_text_:22 in 1425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023406371 = score(doc=1425,freq=2.0), product of:
0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.02879306 = 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(2/20)
- 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.
- 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
