Search (247 results, page 1 of 13)

  • × theme_ss:"Klassifikationstheorie: Elemente / Struktur"
  1. Zhang, J.; Zeng, M.L.: ¬A new similarity measure for subject hierarchical structures (2014) 0.11
    0.10607804 = product of:
      0.1414374 = sum of:
        0.0098289745 = weight(_text_:a in 1778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0098289745 = score(doc=1778,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.05832264 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05058132 = queryNorm
            0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 1778, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1778)
        0.08012097 = weight(_text_:70 in 1778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08012097 = score(doc=1778,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.27085114 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.354766 = idf(docFreq=567, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05058132 = queryNorm
            0.29581183 = fieldWeight in 1778, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.354766 = idf(docFreq=567, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1778)
        0.051487446 = sum of:
          0.017222093 = weight(_text_:information in 1778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.017222093 = score(doc=1778,freq=8.0), product of:
              0.088794395 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.05058132 = queryNorm
              0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 1778, product of:
                2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                  8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1778)
          0.034265354 = weight(_text_:22 in 1778) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.034265354 = score(doc=1778,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17712717 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.05058132 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1778, 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=1778)
      0.75 = coord(3/4)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to introduce a new similarity method to gauge the differences between two subject hierarchical structures. Design/methodology/approach - In the proposed similarity measure, nodes on two hierarchical structures are projected onto a two-dimensional space, respectively, and both structural similarity and subject similarity of nodes are considered in the similarity between the two hierarchical structures. The extent to which the structural similarity impacts on the similarity can be controlled by adjusting a parameter. An experiment was conducted to evaluate soundness of the measure. Eight experts whose research interests were information retrieval and information organization participated in the study. Results from the new measure were compared with results from the experts. Findings - The evaluation shows strong correlations between the results from the new method and the results from the experts. It suggests that the similarity method achieved satisfactory results. Practical implications - Hierarchical structures that are found in subject directories, taxonomies, classification systems, and other classificatory structures play an extremely important role in information organization and information representation. Measuring the similarity between two subject hierarchical structures allows an accurate overarching understanding of the degree to which the two hierarchical structures are similar. Originality/value - Both structural similarity and subject similarity of nodes were considered in the proposed similarity method, and the extent to which the structural similarity impacts on the similarity can be adjusted. In addition, a new evaluation method for a hierarchical structure similarity was presented.
    Date
    8. 4.2015 16:22:13
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 70(2014) no.3, S.364-391
    Type
    a
  2. Frické, M.: Logic and the organization of information (2012) 0.06
    0.060191106 = product of:
      0.08025481 = sum of:
        0.011032996 = weight(_text_:a in 1782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011032996 = score(doc=1782,freq=36.0), product of:
            0.05832264 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05058132 = queryNorm
            0.18917176 = fieldWeight in 1782, product of:
              6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
                36.0 = termFreq=36.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1782)
        0.056084674 = weight(_text_:70 in 1782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056084674 = score(doc=1782,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.27085114 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.354766 = idf(docFreq=567, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05058132 = queryNorm
            0.20706826 = fieldWeight in 1782, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.354766 = idf(docFreq=567, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1782)
        0.013137138 = product of:
          0.026274277 = sum of:
            0.026274277 = weight(_text_:information in 1782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.026274277 = score(doc=1782,freq=38.0), product of:
                0.088794395 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05058132 = queryNorm
                0.29590017 = fieldWeight in 1782, product of:
                  6.164414 = tf(freq=38.0), with freq of:
                    38.0 = termFreq=38.0
                  1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1782)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.75 = coord(3/4)
    
    Abstract
    Logic and the Organization of Information closely examines the historical and contemporary methodologies used to catalogue information objects-books, ebooks, journals, articles, web pages, images, emails, podcasts and more-in the digital era. This book provides an in-depth technical background for digital librarianship, and covers a broad range of theoretical and practical topics including: classification theory, topic annotation, automatic clustering, generalized synonymy and concept indexing, distributed libraries, semantic web ontologies and Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS). It also analyzes the challenges facing today's information architects, and outlines a series of techniques for overcoming them. Logic and the Organization of Information is intended for practitioners and professionals working at a design level as a reference book for digital librarianship. Advanced-level students, researchers and academics studying information science, library science, digital libraries and computer science will also find this book invaluable.
    Footnote
    Rez. in: J. Doc. 70(2014) no.4: "Books on the organization of information and knowledge, aimed at a library/information audience, tend to fall into two clear categories. Most are practical and pragmatic, explaining the "how" as much or more than the "why". Some are theoretical, in part or in whole, showing how the practice of classification, indexing, resource description and the like relates to philosophy, logic, and other foundational bases; the books by Langridge (1992) and by Svenonious (2000) are well-known examples this latter kind. To this category certainly belongs a recent book by Martin Frické (2012). The author takes the reader for an extended tour through a variety of aspects of information organization, including classification and taxonomy, alphabetical vocabularies and indexing, cataloguing and FRBR, and aspects of the semantic web. The emphasis throughout is on showing how practice is, or should be, underpinned by formal structures; there is a particular emphasis on first order predicate calculus. The advantages of a greater, and more explicit, use of symbolic logic is a recurring theme of the book. There is a particularly commendable historical dimension, often omitted in texts on this subject. It cannot be said that this book is entirely an easy read, although it is well written with a helpful index, and its arguments are generally well supported by clear and relevant examples. It is thorough and detailed, but thereby seems better geared to the needs of advanced students and researchers than to the practitioners who are suggested as a main market. For graduate students in library/information science and related disciplines, in particular, this will be a valuable resource. I would place it alongside Svenonious' book as the best insight into the theoretical "why" of information organization. It has evoked a good deal of interest, including a set of essay commentaries in Journal of Information Science (Gilchrist et al., 2013). Introducing these, Alan Gilchrist rightly says that Frické deserves a salute for making explicit the fundamental relationship between the ancient discipline of logic and modern information organization. If information science is to continue to develop, and make a contribution to the organization of the information environments of the future, then this book sets the groundwork for the kind of studies which will be needed." (D. Bawden)
    LCSH
    Information Systems
    Information storage and retrieval systems
    Subject
    Information Systems
    Information storage and retrieval systems
  3. Vickery, B.C.: Faceted classification : A guide to construction and use of special schemes (1986) 0.05
    0.05437715 = product of:
      0.1087543 = sum of:
        0.012609138 = weight(_text_:a in 2475) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012609138 = score(doc=2475,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.05832264 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05058132 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 2475, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2475)
        0.09614516 = weight(_text_:70 in 2475) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09614516 = score(doc=2475,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.27085114 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.354766 = idf(docFreq=567, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05058132 = queryNorm
            0.35497418 = fieldWeight in 2475, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.354766 = idf(docFreq=567, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2475)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    A perfect little book, with just 63 pages of text. From chapter A, Introduction, to U, Mechanization, it covers everything about making a faceted classification: what they are, why they are needed, how to do facet analysis, examples from existing faceted schemes, orderings, common subdivisions, the contents of each facet, notation, filing order, how to perform classification with the created system, and indexing. Each chapter is brief but has full coverage of the subject. "The technique of constructing a special faceted classification is not a settled, automatic, codified procedure. Nothing so complex as the field of knowledge could be analysed and organized by rule-of-thumb. We can therefore offer no more than a guide, describing tested procedures and discussing some difficulties." Vickery was a member of the Classification Research Group and one of the foremost classificationists.
    Pages
    III,70 S
  4. Mayor, C.; Robinson, L.: Ontological realism, concepts and classification in molecular biology : development and application of the gene ontology (2014) 0.05
    0.053532496 = product of:
      0.10706499 = sum of:
        0.010919834 = weight(_text_:a in 1771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010919834 = score(doc=1771,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.05832264 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05058132 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 1771, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1771)
        0.09614516 = weight(_text_:70 in 1771) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09614516 = score(doc=1771,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.27085114 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.354766 = idf(docFreq=567, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05058132 = queryNorm
            0.35497418 = fieldWeight in 1771, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.354766 = idf(docFreq=567, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1771)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this article is to evaluate the development and use of the gene ontology (GO), a scientific vocabulary widely used in molecular biology databases, with particular reference to the relation between the theoretical basis of the GO, and the pragmatics of its application. Design/methodology/approach - The study uses a combination of bibliometric analysis, content analysis and discourse analysis. These analyses focus on details of the ways in which the terms of the ontology are amended and deleted, and in which they are applied by users. Findings - Although the GO is explicitly based on an objective realist epistemology, a considerable extent of subjectivity and social factors are evident in its development and use. It is concluded that bio-ontologies could beneficially be extended to be pluralist, while remaining objective, taking a view of concepts closer to that of more traditional controlled vocabularies. Originality/value - This is one of very few studies which evaluate the development of a formal ontology in relation to its conceptual foundations, and the first to consider the GO in this way.
    Source
    Journal of documentation. 70(2014) no.1, S.173-193
    Type
    a
  5. Connaway, L.S.; Sievert, M.C.: Comparison of three classification systems for information on health insurance (1996) 0.04
    0.03850417 = product of:
      0.07700834 = sum of:
        0.008406092 = weight(_text_:a in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008406092 = score(doc=7242,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.05832264 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05058132 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 7242, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7242)
        0.06860224 = sum of:
          0.013777675 = weight(_text_:information in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.013777675 = score(doc=7242,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.088794395 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.05058132 = queryNorm
              0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 7242, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7242)
          0.054824565 = weight(_text_:22 in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.054824565 = score(doc=7242,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17712717 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.05058132 = 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(2/4)
    
    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
    Type
    a
  6. Hjoerland, B.: Theories of knowledge organization - theories of knowledge (2017) 0.04
    0.037026588 = product of:
      0.074053176 = sum of:
        0.0052010044 = weight(_text_:a in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0052010044 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05832264 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05058132 = queryNorm
            0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
        0.06885217 = sum of:
          0.02088068 = weight(_text_:information in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.02088068 = score(doc=3494,freq=6.0), product of:
              0.088794395 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.05058132 = queryNorm
              0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
                2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                  6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
          0.047971494 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.047971494 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17712717 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.05058132 = queryNorm
              0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3494, 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=3494)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Pages
    S.22-36
    Source
    Theorie, Semantik und Organisation von Wissen: Proceedings der 13. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und dem 13. Internationalen Symposium der Informationswissenschaft der Higher Education Association for Information Science (HI) Potsdam (19.-20.03.2013): 'Theory, Information and Organization of Knowledge' / Proceedings der 14. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und Natural Language & Information Systems (NLDB) Passau (16.06.2015): 'Lexical Resources for Knowledge Organization' / Proceedings des Workshops der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) auf der SEMANTICS Leipzig (1.09.2014): 'Knowledge Organization and Semantic Web' / Proceedings des Workshops der Polnischen und Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) Cottbus (29.-30.09.2011): 'Economics of Knowledge Production and Organization'. Hrsg. von W. Babik, H.P. Ohly u. K. Weber
    Type
    a
  7. Jacob, E.K.: Proposal for a classification of classifications built on Beghtol's distinction between "Naïve Classification" and "Professional Classification" (2010) 0.03
    0.03396608 = product of:
      0.06793216 = sum of:
        0.008916007 = weight(_text_:a in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008916007 = score(doc=2945,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.05832264 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05058132 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 2945, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2945)
        0.05901615 = sum of:
          0.017897725 = weight(_text_:information in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.017897725 = score(doc=2945,freq=6.0), product of:
              0.088794395 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.05058132 = queryNorm
              0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 2945, product of:
                2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                  6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2945)
          0.041118424 = weight(_text_:22 in 2945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.041118424 = score(doc=2945,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17712717 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.05058132 = queryNorm
              0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2945, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2945)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    Argues that Beghtol's (2003) use of the terms "naive classification" and "professional classification" is valid because they are nominal definitions and that the distinction between these two types of classification points up the need for researchers in knowledge organization to broaden their scope beyond traditional classification systems intended for information retrieval. Argues that work by Beghtol (2003), Kwasnik (1999) and Bailey (1994) offer direction for the development of a classification of classifications based on the pragmatic dimensions of extant classification systems. Bezugnahme auf: Beghtol, C.: Naïve classification systems and the global information society. In: Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine. Würzburg: Ergon Verlag 2004. S.19-22. (Advances in knowledge organization; vol.9)
    Content
    Beitrag in einem Special issue: A Festschrift for Clare Beghtol
    Type
    a
  8. Gnoli, C.: Classifying phenomena : part 4: themes and rhemes (2018) 0.03
    0.033118606 = product of:
      0.06623721 = sum of:
        0.014785526 = weight(_text_:a in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014785526 = score(doc=4152,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.05832264 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05058132 = queryNorm
            0.25351265 = fieldWeight in 4152, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4152)
        0.051451683 = sum of:
          0.010333257 = weight(_text_:information in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.010333257 = score(doc=4152,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.088794395 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.05058132 = queryNorm
              0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4152, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4152)
          0.041118424 = weight(_text_:22 in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.041118424 = score(doc=4152,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17712717 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.05058132 = 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(2/4)
    
    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
    Type
    a
  9. Slavic, A.: On the nature and typology of documentary classifications and their use in a networked environment (2007) 0.03
    0.030183844 = product of:
      0.06036769 = sum of:
        0.008916007 = weight(_text_:a in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008916007 = score(doc=780,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.05832264 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05058132 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 780, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=780)
        0.051451683 = sum of:
          0.010333257 = weight(_text_:information in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.010333257 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.088794395 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.05058132 = queryNorm
              0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 780, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=780)
          0.041118424 = weight(_text_:22 in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.041118424 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17712717 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.05058132 = queryNorm
              0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 780, 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=780)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    Networked orientated standards for vocabulary publishing and exchange and proposals for terminological services and terminology registries will improve sharing and use of all knowledge organization systems in the networked information environment. This means that documentary classifications may also become more applicable for use outside their original domain of application. The paper summarises some characteristics common to documentary classifications and explains some terminological, functional and implementation aspects. The original purpose behind each classification scheme determines the functions that the vocabulary is designed to facilitate. These functions influence the structure, semantics and syntax, scheme coverage and format in which classification data are published and made available. The author suggests that attention should be paid to the differences between documentary classifications as these may determine their suitability for a certain purpose and may impose different requirements with respect to their use online. As we speak, many classifications are being created for knowledge organization and it may be important to promote expertise from the bibliographic domain with respect to building and using classification systems.
    Date
    22.12.2007 17:22:31
    Type
    a
  10. Beghtol, C.: Naïve classification systems and the global information society (2004) 0.03
    0.02896101 = product of:
      0.05792202 = sum of:
        0.0064345747 = weight(_text_:a in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0064345747 = score(doc=3483,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.05832264 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05058132 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 3483, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3483)
        0.051487446 = sum of:
          0.017222093 = weight(_text_:information in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.017222093 = score(doc=3483,freq=8.0), product of:
              0.088794395 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.05058132 = queryNorm
              0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 3483, product of:
                2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                  8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3483)
          0.034265354 = weight(_text_:22 in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.034265354 = score(doc=3483,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17712717 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.05058132 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3483, 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=3483)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    Classification is an activity that transcends time and space and that bridges the divisions between different languages and cultures, including the divisions between academic disciplines. Classificatory activity, however, serves different purposes in different situations. Classifications for infonnation retrieval can be called "professional" classifications and classifications in other fields can be called "naïve" classifications because they are developed by people who have no particular interest in classificatory issues. The general purpose of naïve classification systems is to discover new knowledge. In contrast, the general purpose of information retrieval classifications is to classify pre-existing knowledge. Different classificatory purposes may thus inform systems that are intended to span the cultural specifics of the globalized information society. This paper builds an previous research into the purposes and characteristics of naïve classifications. It describes some of the relationships between the purpose and context of a naive classification, the units of analysis used in it, and the theory that the context and the units of analysis imply.
    Footnote
    Vgl.: Jacob, E.K.: Proposal for a classification of classifications built on Beghtol's distinction between "Naïve Classification" and "Professional Classification". In: Knowledge organization. 37(2010) no.2, S.111-120.
    Pages
    S.19-22
    Source
    Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine
    Type
    a
  11. Molholt, P.: Qualities of classification schemes for the Information Superhighway (1995) 0.03
    0.028794112 = product of:
      0.057588223 = sum of:
        0.01114501 = weight(_text_:a in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01114501 = score(doc=5562,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.05832264 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05058132 = queryNorm
            0.19109234 = fieldWeight in 5562, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5562)
        0.046443213 = sum of:
          0.012177859 = weight(_text_:information in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.012177859 = score(doc=5562,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.088794395 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.05058132 = queryNorm
              0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 5562, product of:
                2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                  4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5562)
          0.034265354 = weight(_text_:22 in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.034265354 = score(doc=5562,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17712717 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.05058132 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5562, 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=5562)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    For my segment of this program I'd like to focus on some basic qualities of classification schemes. These qualities are critical to our ability to truly organize knowledge for access. As I see it, there are at least five qualities of note. The first one of these properties that I want to talk about is "authoritative." By this I mean standardized, but I mean more than standardized with a built in consensus-building process. A classification scheme constructed by a collaborative, consensus-building process carries the approval, and the authority, of the discipline groups that contribute to it and that it affects... The next property of classification systems is "expandable," living, responsive, with a clear locus of responsibility for its continuous upkeep. The worst thing you can do with a thesaurus, or a classification scheme, is to finish it. You can't ever finish it because it reflects ongoing intellectual activity... The third property is "intuitive." That is, the system has to be approachable, it has to be transparent, or at least capable of being transparent. It has to have an underlying logic that supports the classification scheme but doesn't dominate it... The fourth property is "organized and logical." I advocate very strongly, and agree with Lois Chan, that classification must be based on a rule-based structure, on somebody's world-view of the syndetic structure... The fifth property is "universal" by which I mean the classification scheme needs be useable by any specific system or application, and be available as a language for multiple purposes.
    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"
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 21(1995) no.2, S.19-22
    Type
    a
  12. Wang, Z.; Chaudhry, A.S.; Khoo, C.S.G.: Using classification schemes and thesauri to build an organizational taxonomy for organizing content and aiding navigation (2008) 0.03
    0.02579122 = product of:
      0.05158244 = sum of:
        0.0059440047 = weight(_text_:a in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0059440047 = score(doc=2346,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.05832264 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05058132 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 2346, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2346)
        0.045638435 = sum of:
          0.018226152 = weight(_text_:information in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.018226152 = score(doc=2346,freq=14.0), product of:
              0.088794395 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.05058132 = queryNorm
              0.20526241 = fieldWeight in 2346, product of:
                3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                  14.0 = termFreq=14.0
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2346)
          0.027412282 = weight(_text_:22 in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.027412282 = score(doc=2346,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17712717 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.05058132 = queryNorm
              0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2346, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2346)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - Potential and benefits of classification schemes and thesauri in building organizational taxonomies cannot be fully utilized by organizations. Empirical data of building an organizational taxonomy by the top-down approach of using classification schemes and thesauri appear to be lacking. The paper seeks to make a contribution in this regard. Design/methodology/approach - A case study of building an organizational taxonomy was conducted in the information studies domain for the Division of Information Studies at Nanyang Technology University, Singapore. The taxonomy was built by using the Dewey Decimal Classification, the Information Science Taxonomy, two information systems taxonomies, and three thesauri (ASIS&T, LISA, and ERIC). Findings - Classification schemes and thesauri were found to be helpful in creating the structure and categories related to the subject facet of the taxonomy, but organizational community sources had to be consulted and several methods had to be employed. The organizational activities and stakeholders' needs had to be identified to determine the objectives, facets, and the subject coverage of the taxonomy. Main categories were determined by identifying the stakeholders' interests and consulting organizational community sources and domain taxonomies. Category terms were selected from terminologies of classification schemes, domain taxonomies, and thesauri against the stakeholders' interests. Hierarchical structures of the main categories were constructed in line with the stakeholders' perspectives and the navigational role taking advantage of structures/term relationships from classification schemes and thesauri. Categories were determined in line with the concepts and the hierarchical levels. Format of categories were uniformed according to a commonly used standard. The consistency principle was employed to make the taxonomy structure and categories neater. Validation of the draft taxonomy through consultations with the stakeholders further refined the taxonomy. Originality/value - No similar study could be traced in the literature. The steps and methods used in the taxonomy development, and the information studies taxonomy itself, will be helpful for library and information schools and other similar organizations in their effort to develop taxonomies for organizing content and aiding navigation on organizational sites.
    Date
    7.11.2008 15:22:04
    Theme
    Information Resources Management
    Type
    a
  13. Dousa, T.M.: Categories and the architectonics of system in Julius Otto Kaiser's method of systematic indexing (2014) 0.03
    0.025153203 = product of:
      0.050306406 = sum of:
        0.007430006 = weight(_text_:a in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007430006 = score(doc=1418,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.05832264 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05058132 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 1418, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1418)
        0.0428764 = sum of:
          0.008611047 = weight(_text_:information in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.008611047 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.088794395 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.05058132 = queryNorm
              0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1418, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1418)
          0.034265354 = weight(_text_:22 in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.034265354 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17712717 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.05058132 = 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(2/4)
    
    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.
    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
    Type
    a
  14. Maniez, J.: ¬Des classifications aux thesaurus : du bon usage des facettes (1999) 0.03
    0.025017217 = product of:
      0.050034434 = sum of:
        0.008916007 = weight(_text_:a in 6404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008916007 = score(doc=6404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05832264 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05058132 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 6404, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6404)
        0.041118424 = product of:
          0.08223685 = sum of:
            0.08223685 = weight(_text_:22 in 6404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.08223685 = score(doc=6404,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17712717 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05058132 = queryNorm
                0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6404, 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=6404)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Date
    1. 8.1996 22:01:00
    Type
    a
  15. Maniez, J.: ¬Du bon usage des facettes : des classifications aux thésaurus (1999) 0.03
    0.025017217 = product of:
      0.050034434 = sum of:
        0.008916007 = weight(_text_:a in 3773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008916007 = score(doc=3773,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05832264 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05058132 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 3773, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3773)
        0.041118424 = product of:
          0.08223685 = sum of:
            0.08223685 = weight(_text_:22 in 3773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.08223685 = score(doc=3773,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17712717 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05058132 = queryNorm
                0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3773, 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=3773)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Date
    1. 8.1996 22:01:00
    Type
    a
  16. Foskett, D.J.: Systems theory and its relevance to documentary classification (2017) 0.03
    0.025017217 = product of:
      0.050034434 = sum of:
        0.008916007 = weight(_text_:a in 3176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008916007 = score(doc=3176,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05832264 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05058132 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 3176, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3176)
        0.041118424 = product of:
          0.08223685 = sum of:
            0.08223685 = weight(_text_:22 in 3176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.08223685 = score(doc=3176,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17712717 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05058132 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Date
    6. 5.2017 18:46:22
    Type
    a
  17. Qin, J.: Evolving paradigms of knowledge representation and organization : a comparative study of classification, XML/DTD and ontology (2003) 0.02
    0.022217229 = product of:
      0.044434458 = sum of:
        0.0072798897 = weight(_text_:a in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0072798897 = score(doc=2763,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.05832264 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05058132 = queryNorm
            0.12482099 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
        0.03715457 = sum of:
          0.009742287 = weight(_text_:information in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.009742287 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.088794395 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.05058132 = queryNorm
              0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
                2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                  4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
                0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
          0.027412282 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.027412282 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17712717 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.05058132 = queryNorm
              0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    The different points of views an knowledge representation and organization from various research communities reflect underlying philosophies and paradigms in these communities. This paper reviews differences and relations in knowledge representation and organization and generalizes four paradigms-integrative and disintegrative pragmatism and integrative and disintegrative epistemologism. Examples such as classification, XML schemas, and ontologies are compared based an how they specify concepts, build data models, and encode knowledge organization structures. 1. Introduction Knowledge representation (KR) is a term that several research communities use to refer to somewhat different aspects of the same research area. The artificial intelligence (AI) community considers KR as simply "something to do with writing down, in some language or communications medium, descriptions or pictures that correspond in some salient way to the world or a state of the world" (Duce & Ringland, 1988, p. 3). It emphasizes the ways in which knowledge can be encoded in a computer program (Bench-Capon, 1990). For the library and information science (LIS) community, KR is literally the synonym of knowledge organization, i.e., KR is referred to as the process of organizing knowledge into classifications, thesauri, or subject heading lists. KR has another meaning in LIS: it "encompasses every type and method of indexing, abstracting, cataloguing, classification, records management, bibliography and the creation of textual or bibliographic databases for information retrieval" (Anderson, 1996, p. 336). Adding the social dimension to knowledge organization, Hjoerland (1997) states that knowledge is a part of human activities and tied to the division of labor in society, which should be the primary organization of knowledge. Knowledge organization in LIS is secondary or derived, because knowledge is organized in learned institutions and publications. These different points of views an KR suggest that an essential difference in the understanding of KR between both AI and LIS lies in the source of representationwhether KR targets human activities or derivatives (knowledge produced) from human activities. This difference also decides their difference in purpose-in AI KR is mainly computer-application oriented or pragmatic and the result of representation is used to support decisions an human activities, while in LIS KR is conceptually oriented or abstract and the result of representation is used for access to derivatives from human activities.
    Date
    12. 9.2004 17:22:35
    Type
    a
  18. Belayche, C.: ¬A propos de la classification de Dewey (1997) 0.02
    0.0188538 = product of:
      0.0377076 = sum of:
        0.010295319 = weight(_text_:a in 1171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010295319 = score(doc=1171,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.05832264 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05058132 = queryNorm
            0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 1171, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1171)
        0.027412282 = product of:
          0.054824565 = sum of:
            0.054824565 = weight(_text_:22 in 1171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.054824565 = score(doc=1171,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17712717 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05058132 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Abstract
    All classifications are based on ideologies and Dewey is marked by its author's origins in 19th century North America. Subsequent revisions indicate changed ways of understanding the world. Section 157 (psycho-pathology) is now included with 616.89 (mental troubles), reflecting the move to a genetic-based approach. Table 5 (racial, ethnic and national groups) is however unchanged, despite changing views on such categorisation
    Source
    Bulletin d'informations de l'Association des Bibliothecaires Francais. 1997, no.175, S.22-23
    Type
    a
  19. Lin, W.-Y.C.: ¬The concept and applications of faceted classifications (2006) 0.02
    0.016678143 = product of:
      0.033356287 = sum of:
        0.0059440047 = weight(_text_:a in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0059440047 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05832264 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05058132 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 5083, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5083)
        0.027412282 = product of:
          0.054824565 = sum of:
            0.054824565 = weight(_text_:22 in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.054824565 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17712717 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05058132 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Date
    27. 5.2007 22:19:35
    Type
    a
  20. Lorenz, B.: Zur Theorie und Terminologie der bibliothekarischen Klassifikation (2018) 0.02
    0.016678143 = product of:
      0.033356287 = sum of:
        0.0059440047 = weight(_text_:a in 4339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0059440047 = score(doc=4339,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05832264 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05058132 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 4339, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4339)
        0.027412282 = product of:
          0.054824565 = sum of:
            0.054824565 = weight(_text_:22 in 4339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.054824565 = score(doc=4339,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17712717 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.05058132 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4339, 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=4339)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(2/4)
    
    Pages
    S.1-22
    Type
    a

Authors

Languages

Types

  • a 221
  • m 20
  • el 10
  • s 4
  • b 1
  • More… Less…