Search (89 results, page 2 of 5)

0.0023760374 = product of:
  0.023760373 = sum of:
    0.0081561245 = weight(_text_:in in 826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0081561245 = score(doc=826,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.2082456 = fieldWeight in 826, 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=826)
    0.015604248 = product of:
      0.031208497 = sum of:
        0.031208497 = weight(_text_:22 in 826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031208497 = score(doc=826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02879306 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 826, 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=826)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)

Abstract

Describes the effect of scheme change on the semantics in faceted classification. Two types of change are identified: ecological change and lexical change. Examples from different editions of the Colon Classification are used to illustrate change.

Date

2. 6.2013 18:33:22

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.13

Source

Categories, contexts and relations in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Twelfth International ISKO Conference 6-9 August 2012, Mysore, India. Eds.: Neelameghan, A. u. K.S. Raghavan

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

0.0020790326 = product of:
  0.020790325 = sum of:
    0.0071366085 = weight(_text_:in in 4227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071366085 = score(doc=4227,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.1822149 = fieldWeight in 4227, 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=4227)
    0.013653717 = product of:
      0.027307434 = sum of:
        0.027307434 = weight(_text_:22 in 4227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027307434 = score(doc=4227,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02879306 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4227, 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=4227)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)

Abstract

We present three fundamental, interrelated approaches to support multiple access paths to each terminal object in information hierarchies: faceted classification, faceted search, and web directories with embedded symbolic links. This survey aims to demonstrate how each approach supports users who seek information from multiple perspectives. We achieve this by exploring each approach, the relationships between these approaches, including tradeoffs, and how they can be used in concert, while focusing on a core set of hypermedia elements common to all. This approach provides a foundation from which to study, understand, and synthesize applications which employ these techniques. This survey does not aim to be comprehensive, but rather focuses on thematic issues.

Source

Information processing and management. 46(2010) no.1, S.22-43

0.0019059516 = product of:
  0.019059516 = sum of:
    0.009306861 = weight(_text_:in in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009306861 = score(doc=1418,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.2376267 = fieldWeight in 1418, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1418)
    0.009752655 = product of:
      0.01950531 = sum of:
        0.01950531 = weight(_text_:22 in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01950531 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02879306 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1418, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1418)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)

Abstract

Categories, or concepts of high generality representing the most basic kinds of entities in the world, have long been understood to be a fundamental element in the construction of knowledge organization systems (KOSs), particularly faceted ones. Commentators on facet analysis have tended to foreground the role of categories in the structuring of controlled vocabularies and the construction of compound index terms, and the implications of this for subject representation and information retrieval. Less attention has been paid to the variety of ways in which categories can shape the overall architectonic framework of a KOS. This case study explores the range of functions that categories took in structuring various aspects of an early analytico-synthetic KOS, Julius Otto Kaiser's method of Systematic Indexing (SI). Within SI, categories not only functioned as mechanisms to partition an index vocabulary into smaller groupings of terms and as elements in the construction of compound index terms but also served as means of defining the units of indexing, or index items, incorporated into an index; determining the organization of card index files and the articulation of the guide card system serving as a navigational aids thereto; and setting structural constraints to the establishment of cross-references between terms. In all these ways, Kaiser's system of categories contributed to the general systematicity of SI.

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

0.0017539334 = product of:
  0.017539334 = sum of:
    0.0077866786 = weight(_text_:in in 1417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0077866786 = score(doc=1417,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 1417, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1417)
    0.009752655 = product of:
      0.01950531 = sum of:
        0.01950531 = weight(_text_:22 in 1417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01950531 = score(doc=1417,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.10082839 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02879306 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1417, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1417)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)

Abstract

In recent years, Hjørland has developed a typology of basic epistemological approaches to KO that identifies four basic positions - empiricism, rationalism, historicism/hermeneutics, and pragmatism -with which to characterize the epistemological bases and methodological orientation of KOSs. Although scholars of KO have noted that the design of a single KOS may incorporate epistemological-methodological features from more than one of these approaches, studies of concrete examples of epistemologico-methodological eclecticism have been rare. In this paper, we consider the phenomenon of epistemologico-methodological eclecticism in one theoretically significant family of KOSs - namely analytico-synthetic, or faceted, KOSs - by examining two cases - Julius Otto Kaiser's method of Systematic Indexing (SI) and Brian Vickery's method of facet analysis (FA) for document classification. We show that both of these systems combined classical features of rationalism with elements of empiricism and pragmatism and argue that such eclecticism is the norm, rather than the exception, for such KOSs in general.

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

0.0017407619 = product of:
  0.017407618 = sum of:
    0.012698677 = weight(_text_:der in 4521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012698677 = score(doc=4521,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06431698 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.19743896 = fieldWeight in 4521, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4521)
    0.00470894 = weight(_text_:in in 4521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00470894 = score(doc=4521,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.120230645 = fieldWeight in 4521, 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=4521)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)

Abstract

J. Kaiser (1868-1927) developed a system of subject indexing based on what he called "concretes" and "processes" to govern the form of subject headings and subdivisions. Although Kaiser applied his systematic indexing to specialized technical and business collections, his ideas are entirely applicable to all book collections and catalogs. Though largely ignored, Kaiser's system is of permanent interest in the study of the development of subject analysis

Theme

Geschichte der Klassifikationssysteme

0.0016260982 = product of:
  0.016260982 = sum of:
    0.007936673 = weight(_text_:der in 5800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007936673 = score(doc=5800,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06431698 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.12339935 = fieldWeight in 5800, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5800)
    0.008324308 = weight(_text_:in in 5800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008324308 = score(doc=5800,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.21253976 = fieldWeight in 5800, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5800)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)

Abstract

Shiyali Ramamrita Ranganathan's theory of classification spans a number of works over a number of decades. And while he was devoted to solving many problems in the practice of librarianship, and is known as the father of library science in India (Garfield, 1984), his work in classification revolves around one central concern. His classification research addressed the problems that arose from introducing new ideas into a scheme for classification, while maintaining a meaningful hierarchical and systematically arranged order of classes. This is because hierarchical and systematically arranged classes are the defining characteristic of useful classification. To lose this order is to through the addition of new classes is to introduce confusion, if not chaos, and to move toward a useless classification - or at least one that requires complete revision. In the following chapter, I outline the stages, and the elements of those stages, in Ranganathan's thought on classification from 1926-1972, as well as posthumous work that continues his agenda. And while facets figure prominently in all of these stages; but for Ranganathan to achieve his goal, he must continually add to this central feature of his theory of classification. I will close this chapter with an outline of persistent problems that represent research fronts for the field. Chief among these are what to do about scheme change and the open question about the rigor of information modeling in light of semantic web developments.

Theme

Geschichte der Klassifikationssysteme

0.0013055713 = product of:
  0.013055713 = sum of:
    0.009524008 = weight(_text_:der in 1158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009524008 = score(doc=1158,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06431698 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.14807922 = fieldWeight in 1158, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1158)
    0.003531705 = weight(_text_:in in 1158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003531705 = score(doc=1158,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 1158, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1158)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)

Abstract

Acknowledging the importance of classification not only for library and information science but also for the study and mapping of the world phenomena, in this paper we revisit and systematize the main types of classifications and focus on the species of classification mainly drawing on the work of S. R. Ranganathan. We trace the evolution of library classification systems by their structures and modes of design of various shades of classification systems and make a comparative study of enumerative and faceted species of library classifications. The value of this paper is to have a picture of the whole spectrum of existing classifications, which may serve for the study of future developments and constructions of new systems. This paper updates previous works by Comaromi and Ranganathan and is also theoretically inspired by them.

Theme

Geschichte der Klassifikationssysteme

0.0013034251 = product of:
  0.013034251 = sum of:
    0.007936673 = weight(_text_:der in 3849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007936673 = score(doc=3849,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06431698 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.12339935 = fieldWeight in 3849, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3849)
    0.005097578 = weight(_text_:in in 3849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005097578 = score(doc=3849,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.1301535 = fieldWeight in 3849, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3849)
  0.1 = coord(2/20)

Abstract

Various fields, each with its own theories, techniques, and tools, are concerned with identifying and representing the conceptual structure of specific knowledge domains. This paper compares facet analysis, an analytic technique coming out of knowledge organization (especially as undertaken by members of the Classification Research Group (CRG)), with semantic frame analysis, an analytic technique coming out of lexical semantics (especially as undertaken by the developers of Frame-Net) The investigation addresses three questions: 1) how do CRG-style facet analysis and semantic frame analysis characterize the conceptual structures that they identify?; 2) how similar are the techniques they use?; and, 3) how similar are the conceptual structures they produce? Facet analysis is concerned with the logical categories underlying the terminology of an entire field, while semantic frame analysis is concerned with the participant-and-prop structure manifest in sentences about a type of situation or event. When their scope of application is similar, as, for example, in the areas of the performing arts or education, the resulting facets and semantic frame elements often bear striking resemblance, without being the same; facets are more often expressed as semantic types, while frame elements are more often expressed as roles.

Content

Beitrag in einem Special Issue: Selected Papers from the International UDC Seminar 2017, Faceted Classification Today: Theory, Technology and End Users, 14-15 September, London UK.

Theme

Geschichte der Klassifikationssysteme

7.856907E-4 = product of:
  0.015713813 = sum of:
    0.015713813 = weight(_text_:der in 1151) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015713813 = score(doc=1151,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.06431698 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.24431825 = fieldWeight in 1151, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1151)
  0.05 = coord(1/20)

Footnote

Mit einer Abbildung der Klassen der ILC als Liniendiagramm (von U. Priss)

5.5841164E-4 = product of:
  0.011168232 = sum of:
    0.011168232 = weight(_text_:in in 843) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011168232 = score(doc=843,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.28515202 = fieldWeight in 843, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=843)
  0.05 = coord(1/20)

Abstract

The categories/isolates are broadly conceived as common and special. The common categories are applicable to all the classes of subjects in a Classification system, whereas the specials are applicable within a domain or specified classes of a classification system. The CC has represented some unique special categories, especially in the Agriculture Subject schedule, and such a provision is not seen in any other classification system; not even in any other subject schedule of Colon Classification. These special categories are termed here as "Domain Specific Categories". The paper analyses the thematic relationships within and outside the subject schedule with potential applications in devising a scheme of metadata as demonstrated in a research study on Indian Medicinal Plants. The other potential applications of such thematic relationships are in the creation of semantic maps and in linking concepts from different domains of knowledge.

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.13

Source

Categories, contexts and relations in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Twelfth International ISKO Conference 6-9 August 2012, Mysore, India. Eds.: Neelameghan, A. u. K.S. Raghavan

5.097578E-4 = product of:
  0.010195156 = sum of:
    0.010195156 = weight(_text_:in in 5566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010195156 = score(doc=5566,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.260307 = fieldWeight in 5566, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5566)
  0.05 = coord(1/20)

Abstract

This article pertains to two further general classifications, which, in contrast to the reigning classifications just mentioned, incorporate in a thoroughgoing manner a modem view of the world. One of these was announced in 1910, to a chorus of disapproval, saw the light of day as a completed scheme in 1935, fell into suspended animation after the death of its author in the 1950s, and was revived, drastically revised and expanded in England by Jack Mills in 1967. A large part of the expanded scheme has appeared in the form of separately published fascicles; the remainder mostly in the areas of science and technology are in an advanced state of preparation. I refer of course to the Bliss Bibliographic Classification. I use the expression "of course" with some slight hesitation having once met a North American library school academic who thought that Henry Evelyn Bliss was an Englishman who lived in the London inner suburb of Islington. This was an unconscious tribute to Jack Mills, though perhaps unfair to Bliss himself, not to mention America, whose son he was.

Footnote

Paper presented at the 36th Allerton Institute, 23-25 Oct 94, Allerton Park, Monticello, IL: "New Roles for Classification in Libraries and Information Networks: Presentation and Reports"

5.0463446E-4 = product of:
  0.010092689 = sum of:
    0.010092689 = weight(_text_:in in 517) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010092689 = score(doc=517,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.2576908 = fieldWeight in 517, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=517)
  0.05 = coord(1/20)

Abstract

Reviews the new edition of CC, which has incorporated most of the developments in the idea plane and notational plane reported in the literature during the previous 20 years, making it a 'freely faceted' scheme. However, some errors have crept in which are bound to create problems for the users. Both these aspects have been critically examined here drawing comparison, where necessary, with the previous edition of the scheme. Reveals the enormously improved capabilities of the scheme in meeting the challenge posed by the ever expanding horizon of the universe of subjects as also the inconsistencies and lack of cohesion in various schedules

4.994586E-4 = product of:
  0.009989171 = sum of:
    0.009989171 = weight(_text_:in in 2766) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009989171 = score(doc=2766,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 2766, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2766)
  0.05 = coord(1/20)

Series

Contributions in librarianship and information science; 3

Source

Subject retrieval in the seventies: new directions. Proc. of an int. symp. ... College Park, 14.-15.5.1971. Ed.: H.H. Wellisch u.a

4.994586E-4 = product of:
  0.009989171 = sum of:
    0.009989171 = weight(_text_:in in 1806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009989171 = score(doc=1806,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 1806, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1806)
  0.05 = coord(1/20)

Abstract

Facets and general categories used in bibliographic classification have been based on a disciplinary organization of knowledge. However, facets and categories of phenomena independent from disciplines can be identified similarly. Phenomena can be classified according to a series of integrative levels (layers), which in turn can be grouped into the major strata of form, matter, life, mind, society and culture, agreeing with Nicolai Hartmann's ontology. Unlike a layer, a stratum is not constituted of elements of the lower ones; rather, it represents the formal pattern of the lower ones, like the horse hoof represents the shape of the steppe. Bibliographic categories can now be seen in the light of level theory: some categories are truly general, while others only appear at a given level, being the realization of a general category in the specific context of the level: these are the facets of that level. In the notation of the Integrative Level Classification project, categories and facets are represented by digits, and displayed in a Web interface with the help of colours.

Content

Beitrag eines Themenheftes "Facets: a fruitful notion in many domains".

4.994586E-4 = product of:
  0.009989171 = sum of:
    0.009989171 = weight(_text_:in in 1857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009989171 = score(doc=1857,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.25504774 = fieldWeight in 1857, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1857)
  0.05 = coord(1/20)

Abstract

Facet analysis is an established methodology for building classifications and subject indexing systems, but has been less rigorously applied to thesauri. The process of creating a compatible thesaurus from the schedules of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification 2nd edition highlights the ways in which the conceptual relationships in a subject field are handled in the two types of retrieval languages. An underlying uniformity of theory is established, and the way in which software can manage the relationships is discussed. The manner of displaying verbal expressions of concepts (vocabulary control) is also considered, but is found to be less well controlled in the classification than in the thesaurus. Nevertheless, there is good reason to think that facet analysis provides a sound basis for structuring a variety of knowledge organization tools.

Content

Beitrag eines Themenheftes "Facets: a fruitful notion in many domains".

4.8805587E-4 = product of:
  0.009761117 = sum of:
    0.009761117 = weight(_text_:in in 1482) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009761117 = score(doc=1482,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.24922498 = fieldWeight in 1482, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1482)
  0.05 = coord(1/20)

Abstract

Colon Classification (CC) is truly the first freely faceted scheme for library classification devised and propagated by Dr. S.R. Ranganathan. The scheme is being taught in theory and practice to the students in most of the LIS schools in India and abroad also. Many manuals, Guide books and Introductory works have been published on CC in the past. But the present work tread a new path in presenting CC to the student, teaching and professional community. The present work Colon Classification: Theory and Practice; A Self Instructional Manual is the result of author's twenty-five years experience of teaching theory and practice of CC to the students of LIS. For the first ime concerted and systematic attempt has been made to present theory and practice of CC in self-instructional mode, keeping in view the requirements of students learners of Open Universities/ Distance Education Institutions in particular. The other singificant and novel features introduced in this manual are: Presenting the scope of each block consisting certain units bollowed by objectives, introduction, sections, sub-sections, self check exercises, glossary and assignment of each unit. It is hoped that all these features will help the users/readers of this manual to understand and grasp quickly, the intricacies involved in theory and practice of CC(6th Edition). The manual is presented in three blocks and twelve units.

4.8805587E-4 = product of:
  0.009761117 = sum of:
    0.009761117 = weight(_text_:in in 2497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009761117 = score(doc=2497,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.24922498 = fieldWeight in 2497, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2497)
  0.05 = coord(1/20)

Content

The paper describes current work on the generation of a thesaurus format from the schedules of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification 2nd edition (BC2). The practical problems that occur in moving from a concept based approach to a terminological approach cluster around issues of vocabulary control that are not fully addressed in a systematic structure. These difficulties can be exacerbated within domains in the humanities because large numbers of culture specific terms may need to be accommodated in any thesaurus. The ways in which these problems can be resolved within the context of a semi-automated approach to the thesaurus generation have consequences for the management of classification data in the source vocabulary. The way in which the vocabulary is marked up for the purpose of machine manipulation is described, and some of the implications for editorial policy are discussed and examples given. The value of the classification notation as a language independent representation and mapping tool should not be sacrificed in such an exercise.

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.11

Source

Culture and identity in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Tenth International ISKO Conference 5-8 August 2008, Montreal, Canada. Ed. by Clément Arsenault and Joseph T. Tennis

4.70894E-4 = product of:
  0.00941788 = sum of:
    0.00941788 = weight(_text_:in in 116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00941788 = score(doc=116,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 116, 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=116)
  0.05 = coord(1/20)

Source

Classification in the 1970s. Rev. ed

4.70894E-4 = product of:
  0.00941788 = sum of:
    0.00941788 = weight(_text_:in in 1272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00941788 = score(doc=1272,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.039165888 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02879306 = queryNorm
        0.24046129 = fieldWeight in 1272, 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=1272)
  0.05 = coord(1/20)

Source

Classification in the 1970s: a second look. Rev. ed. Ed.: A. Maltby