Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.008057926 = product of:
  0.06446341 = sum of:
    0.022619944 = weight(_text_:und in 3155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022619944 = score(doc=3155,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = queryNorm
        0.46462005 = fieldWeight in 3155, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3155)
    0.019223517 = weight(_text_:der in 3155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019223517 = score(doc=3155,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.049067024 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = queryNorm
        0.3917808 = fieldWeight in 3155, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3155)
    0.022619944 = weight(_text_:und in 3155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022619944 = score(doc=3155,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.04868482 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = queryNorm
        0.46462005 = fieldWeight in 3155, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3155)
  0.125 = coord(3/24)

Abstract

Ein jeder Mensch ist mit seinem Dasein eingebettet in kosmische Gesetzmäßigkeiten und findet sich individualisiert und begrenzt durch die Bedingungen von Raum und Zeit; seine jeweilige "Mitgift" in vorgefundener Umgebung verlangt nach menschlicher Sinn Erfüllung. Diese ontischen Gegebenheiten können als Strukturvorgabe angesehen werden, die sich durch die kategorialen und logischen Strukturen menschlichen Denkens und Sprechens - z.B. in artikulierten Sätzen menschlichen Wissens - ergänzen lässt. Dabei bilden sich Wissensmuster, die sich in einem ontologisch fundierten Gesamtschema aller Wissensgebiete zur Darstellung bringen lassen können. Der Vortrag erläutert die hier angedeuteten kategorialen und systemtheoretischen Grundlagen mit Bezug auf die Konstruktion eines neuen, universalen Ordnungssystems aller Wissensgebiete, das vor 30 Jahren konzipiert wurde und sich bereits in vielfacher Hinsicht bewährt hat. Seine Rasterdarstellung ermöglicht eine übersichtliche, fokussierbare und unkomplizierte Handhabung in elektronischen Medien.

Footnote

Mit einer Übersicht der Information Coding Classification

Series

Fortschritte in der Wissensorganisation; Bd.8

Source

Wissensorganisation in kooperativen Lern- und Arbeitsumgebungen: Proceedings der 8. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Regensburg, 9.-11. Oktober 2002. Hrsg.: G. Budin u. H.P. Ohly

0.0033725756 = product of:
  0.040470906 = sum of:
    0.030688146 = weight(_text_:1960 in 3262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030688146 = score(doc=3262,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15622076 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = queryNorm
        0.19644089 = fieldWeight in 3262, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3262)
    0.009782758 = product of:
      0.029348273 = sum of:
        0.029348273 = weight(_text_:p in 3262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029348273 = score(doc=3262,freq=28.0), product of:
            0.078979194 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.371595 = fieldWeight in 3262, product of:
              5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
                28.0 = termFreq=28.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3262)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.083333336 = coord(2/24)

Footnote

Rez. in: KO 36(2009) no.1, S.62-63 (K. La Barre): "This special issue of Axiomathes presents an ambitious dual agenda. It attempts to highlight aspects of facet analysis (as used in LIS) that are shared by cognate approaches in philosophy, psychology, linguistics and computer science. Secondarily, the issue aims to attract others to the study and use of facet analysis. The authors represent a blend of lifetime involvement with facet analysis, such as Vickery, Broughton, Beghtol, and Dahlberg; those with well developed research agendas such as Tudhope, and Priss; and relative newcomers such as Gnoli, Cheti and Paradisi, and Slavic. Omissions are inescapable, but a more balanced issue would have resulted from inclusion of at least one researcher from the Indian school of facet theory. Another valuable addition might have been a reaction to the issue by one of the chief critics of facet analysis. Potentially useful, but absent, is a comprehensive bibliography of resources for those wishing to engage in further study, that now lie scattered throughout the issue. Several of the papers assume relative familiarity with facet analytical concepts and definitions, some of which are contested even within LIS. Gnoli's introduction (p. 127-130) traces the trajectory, extensions and new developments of this analytico- synthetic approach to subject access, while providing a laundry list of cognate approaches that are similar to facet analysis. This brief essay and the article by Priss (p. 243-255) directly addresses this first part of Gnoli's agenda. Priss provides detailed discussion of facet-like structures in computer science (p. 245- 246), and outlines the similarity between Formal Concept Analysis and facets. This comparison is equally fruitful for researchers in computer science and library and information science. By bridging into a discussion of visualization challenges for facet display, further research is also invited. Many of the remaining papers comprehensively detail the intellectual heritage of facet analysis (Beghtol; Broughton, p. 195-198; Dahlberg; Tudhope and Binding, p. 213-215; Vickery). Beghtol's (p. 131-144) examination of the origins of facet theory through the lens of the textbooks written by Ranganathan's mentor W.C.B. Sayers (1881-1960), Manual of Classification (1926, 1944, 1955) and a textbook written by Mills A Modern Outline of Classification (1964), serves to reveal the deep intellectual heritage of the changes in classification theory over time, as well as Ranganathan's own influence on and debt to Sayers.
Several of the papers are clearly written as primers and neatly address the second agenda item: attracting others to the study and use of facet analysis. The most valuable papers are written in clear, approachable language. Vickery's paper (p. 145-160) is a clarion call for faceted classification and facet analysis. The heart of the paper is a primer for central concepts and techniques. Vickery explains the value of using faceted classification in document retrieval. Also provided are potential solutions to thorny interface and display issues with facets. Vickery looks to complementary themes in knowledge organization, such as thesauri and ontologies as potential areas for extending the facet concept. Broughton (p. 193-210) describes a rigorous approach to the application of facet analysis in the creation of a compatible thesaurus from the schedules of the 2nd edition of the Bliss Classification (BC2). This discussion of exemplary faceted thesauri, recent standards work, and difficulties encountered in the project will provide valuable guidance for future research in this area. Slavic (p. 257-271) provides a challenge to make faceted classification come 'alive' through promoting the use of machine-readable formats for use and exchange in applications such as Topic Maps and SKOS (Simple Knowledge Organization Systems), and as supported by the standard BS8723 (2005) Structured Vocabulary for Information Retrieval. She also urges designers of faceted classifications to get involved in standards work. Cheti and Paradisi (p. 223-241) outline a basic approach to converting an existing subject indexing tool, the Nuovo Soggetario, into a faceted thesaurus through the use of facet analysis. This discussion, well grounded in the canonical literature, may well serve as a primer for future efforts. Also useful for those who wish to construct faceted thesauri is the article by Tudhope and Binding (p. 211-222). This contains an outline of basic elements to be found in exemplar faceted thesauri, and a discussion of project FACET (Faceted Access to Cultural heritage Terminology) with algorithmically-based semantic query expansion in a dataset composed of items from the National Museum of Science and Industry indexed with AAT (Art and Architecture Thesaurus). This paper looks to the future hybridization of ontologies and facets through standards developments such as SKOS because of the "lightweight semantics" inherent in facets.
Two of the papers revisit the interaction of facets with the theory of integrative levels, which posits that the organization of the natural world reflects increasingly interdependent complexity. This approach was tested as a basis for the creation of faceted classifications in the 1960s. These contemporary treatments of integrative levels are not discipline-driven as were the early approaches, but instead are ontological and phenomenological in focus. Dahlberg (p. 161-172) outlines the creation of the ICC (Information Coding System) and the application of the Systematifier in the generation of facets and the creation of a fully faceted classification. Gnoli (p. 177-192) proposes the use of fundamental categories as a way to redefine facets and fundamental categories in "more universal and level-independent ways" (p. 192). Given that Axiomathes has a stated focus on "contemporary issues in cognition and ontology" and the following thesis: "that real advances in contemporary science may depend upon a consideration of the origins and intellectual history of ideas at the forefront of current research," this venue seems well suited for the implementation of the stated agenda, to illustrate complementary approaches and to stimulate research. As situated, this special issue may well serve as a bridge to a more interdisciplinary dialogue about facet analysis than has previously been the case."

0.0025573457 = product of:
  0.061376292 = sum of:
    0.061376292 = weight(_text_:1960 in 1856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061376292 = score(doc=1856,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15622076 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = queryNorm
        0.39288178 = fieldWeight in 1856, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.11192 = idf(docFreq=97, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1856)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)

Abstract

During the twentieth century, bibliographic classification theory underwent a structural revolution. The first modern bibliographic classifications were top-down systems that started at the universe of knowledge and subdivided that universe downward to minute subclasses. After the invention of faceted classification by S.R. Ranganathan, the ideal was to build bottom-up classifications that started with the universe of concepts and built upward to larger and larger faceted classes. This ideal has not been achieved, and the two kinds of classification systems are not mutually exclusive. This paper examines the process by which this structural revolution was accomplished by looking at the spread of facet theory after 1924 when Ranganathan attended the School of Librarianship, London, through selected classification textbooks that were published after that date. To this end, the paper examines the role of W.C.B. Sayers as a teacher and author of three editions of The Manual of Classification for Librarians and Bibliographers. Sayers influenced both Ranganathan and the various members of the Classification Research Group (CRG) who were his students. Further, the paper contrasts the methods of evaluating classification systems that arose between Sayers's Canons of Classification in 1915- 1916 and J. Mills's A Modern Outline of Library Classification in 1960 in order to demonstrate the speed with which one kind of classificatory structure was overtaken by another.

5.005185E-4 = product of:
  0.0120124435 = sum of:
    0.0120124435 = product of:
      0.024024887 = sum of:
        0.024024887 = weight(_text_:29 in 1476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024024887 = score(doc=1476,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07726968 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 1476, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1476)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)

Date

29. 2.2008 13:41:01

4.9949874E-4 = product of:
  0.011987969 = sum of:
    0.011987969 = weight(_text_:der in 1151) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011987969 = score(doc=1151,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.049067024 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.2337668 = idf(docFreq=12875, maxDocs=44218)
          0.021966046 = 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)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)

Footnote

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

4.96016E-4 = product of:
  0.011904384 = sum of:
    0.011904384 = product of:
      0.023808768 = sum of:
        0.023808768 = weight(_text_:22 in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023808768 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07692135 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = 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)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)

Date

27. 5.2007 22:19:35

3.7538886E-4 = product of:
  0.009009332 = sum of:
    0.009009332 = product of:
      0.018018665 = sum of:
        0.018018665 = weight(_text_:29 in 1857) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018018665 = score(doc=1857,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.07726968 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.021966046 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 1857, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1857)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.041666668 = coord(1/24)

Date

31. 5.2008 19:11:29