Search (75 results, page 1 of 4)

  • × theme_ss:"Klassifikationstheorie: Elemente / Struktur"
  1. Slavic, A.; Cordeiro, M.I.: Core requirements for automation of analytico-synthetic classifications (2004) 0.05 
    0.047729462 = product of:
  0.07159419 = sum of:
    0.05470639 = weight(_text_:management in 2651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05470639 = score(doc=2651,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17312427 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051362853 = queryNorm
        0.31599492 = fieldWeight in 2651, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2651)
    0.016887804 = product of:
      0.03377561 = sum of:
        0.03377561 = weight(_text_:system in 2651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03377561 = score(doc=2651,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16177002 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = queryNorm
            0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 2651, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2651)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    The paper analyses the importance of data presentation and modelling and its role in improving the management, use and exchange of analytico-synthetic classifications in automated systems. Inefficiencies, in this respect, hinder the automation of classification systems that offer the possibility of building compound index/search terms. The lack of machine readable data expressing the semantics and structure of a classification vocabulary has negative effects on information management and retrieval, thus restricting the potential of both automated systems and classifications themselves. The authors analysed the data representation structure of three general analytico-synthetic classification systems (BC2-Bliss Bibliographic Classification; BSO-Broad System of Ordering; UDC-Universal Decimal Classification) and put forward some core requirements for classification data representation
  2. Beghtol, C.: Relationships in classificatory structure and meaning (2001) 0.04 
    0.041710816 = product of:
  0.06256622 = sum of:
    0.038683258 = weight(_text_:management in 1138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038683258 = score(doc=1138,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17312427 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051362853 = queryNorm
        0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 1138, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1138)
    0.02388296 = product of:
      0.04776592 = sum of:
        0.04776592 = weight(_text_:system in 1138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04776592 = score(doc=1138,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16177002 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = queryNorm
            0.29527056 = fieldWeight in 1138, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1138)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    In a changing information environment, we need to reassess each element of bibliographic control, including classification theories and systems. Every classification system is a theoretical construct imposed an "reality." The classificatory relationships that are assumed to be valuable have generally received less attention than the topics included in the systems. Relationships are functions of both the syntactic and semantic axes of classification systems, and both explicit and implicit relationships are discussed. Examples are drawn from a number of different systems, both bibliographic and non-bibliographic, and the cultural warrant (i. e., the sociocultural context) of classification systems is examined. The part-whole relationship is discussed as an example of a universally valid concept that is treated as a component of the cultural warrant of a classification system.
    Series
    Information science and knowledge management; vol.2
  3. Winske, E.: ¬The development and structure of an urban, regional, and local documents classification scheme (1996) 0.04 
    0.038987987 = product of:
  0.11696395 = sum of:
    0.11696395 = sum of:
      0.06825125 = weight(_text_:system in 7241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06825125 = score(doc=7241,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.16177002 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051362853 = queryNorm
          0.42190298 = fieldWeight in 7241, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7241)
      0.0487127 = weight(_text_:22 in 7241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0487127 = score(doc=7241,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17986396 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051362853 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 7241, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=7241)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Discusses the reasons for the decision, taken at Florida International University Library to develop an in house classification system for their local documents collections. Reviews the structures of existing classification systems, noting their strengths and weaknesses in relation to the development of an in house system and describes the 5 components of the new system; geography, subject categories, extensions for population group and/or function, extensions for type of publication, and title/series designator
    Footnote
    Paper presented at conference on 'Local documents, a new classification scheme' at the Research Caucus of the Florida Library Association Annual Conference, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 22 Apr 95
  4. Broughton, V.; Slavic, A.: Building a faceted classification for the humanities : principles and procedures (2007) 0.04 
    0.037314188 = product of:
  0.05597128 = sum of:
    0.036470924 = weight(_text_:management in 2875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036470924 = score(doc=2875,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17312427 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051362853 = queryNorm
        0.21066327 = fieldWeight in 2875, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2875)
    0.019500358 = product of:
      0.039000716 = sum of:
        0.039000716 = weight(_text_:system in 2875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039000716 = score(doc=2875,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16177002 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = queryNorm
            0.24108742 = fieldWeight in 2875, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2875)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Purpose - This paper aims to provide an overview of principles and procedures involved in creating a faceted classification scheme for use in resource discovery in an online environment. Design/methodology/approach - Facet analysis provides an established rigorous methodology for the conceptual organization of a subject field, and the structuring of an associated classification or controlled vocabulary. This paper explains how that methodology was applied to the humanities in the FATKS project, where the objective was to explore the potential of facet analytical theory for creating a controlled vocabulary for the humanities, and to establish the requirements of a faceted classification appropriate to an online environment. A detailed faceted vocabulary was developed for two areas of the humanities within a broader facet framework for the whole of knowledge. Research issues included how to create a data model which made the faceted structure explicit and machine-readable and provided for its further development and use. Findings - In order to support easy facet combination in indexing, and facet searching and browsing on the interface, faceted classification requires a formalized data structure and an appropriate tool for its management. The conceptual framework of a faceted system proper can be applied satisfactorily to humanities, and fully integrated within a vocabulary management system. Research limitations/implications - The procedures described in this paper are concerned only with the structuring of the classification, and do not extend to indexing, retrieval and application issues. Practical implications - Many stakeholders in the domain of resource discovery consider developing their own classification system and supporting tools. The methods described in this paper may clarify the process of building a faceted classification and may provide some useful ideas with respect to the vocabulary maintenance tool. Originality/value - As far as the authors are aware there is no comparable research in this area.
  5. Advances in classification research. Vol.10 : Proceedings of the 10th ASIS SIG/CR Classification Research Workshop, held at the 62nd ASIS Annual Meeting Nov 1-5, 1999, Washington (2001) 0.04 
    0.03704738 = product of:
  0.055571064 = sum of:
    0.038683258 = weight(_text_:management in 1586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038683258 = score(doc=1586,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17312427 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051362853 = queryNorm
        0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 1586, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1586)
    0.016887804 = product of:
      0.03377561 = sum of:
        0.03377561 = weight(_text_:system in 1586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03377561 = score(doc=1586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16177002 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = queryNorm
            0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 1586, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1586)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Content
    Enthält die Beiträge: DAVENPORT, E.: Implicit orders: documentary genres and organizational practice; ANDERSEN, J. u. F.S. CHRISTENSEN: Wittgenstein and indexing theory; OLSON, H.A.: Cultural discourses of classification: indigeous alternatives to the tradition of Aristotle, Dürkheim, and Foucault; FRÂNCU, V.: A universal classification system going through changes; JACOB, E.K. u. U. PRISS: Nontraditional indexing structures for the management of electronic resources; BROOKS, T.A.: Relevance auras: macro patterns and micro scatter; RUIZ, M.E. u. SRINIVASAN, P.: Combining machine learning and hierarchical indexing structures for text categorization; WEEDMAN, J.: Local practice and the growth of knowledge: decisions in subject access to digitized images
  6. Jacob, E.K.: ¬The everyday world of work : two approaches to the investigation of classification in context (2001) 0.03 
    0.030872812 = product of:
  0.046309218 = sum of:
    0.032236047 = weight(_text_:management in 4494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032236047 = score(doc=4494,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17312427 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051362853 = queryNorm
        0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 4494, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4494)
    0.01407317 = product of:
      0.02814634 = sum of:
        0.02814634 = weight(_text_:system in 4494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02814634 = score(doc=4494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16177002 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = queryNorm
            0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 4494, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4494)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    One major aspect of T.D. Wilson's research has been his insistence on situating the investigation of information behaviour within the context of its occurrence - within the everyday world of work. The significance of this approach is reviewed in light of the notion of embodied cognition that characterises the evolving theoretical episteme in cognitive science research. Embodied cognition employs complex external props such as stigmergic structures and cognitive scaffoldings to reduce the cognitive burden on the individual and to augment human problem-solving activities. The cognitive function of the classification scheme is described as exemplifying both stigmergic structures and cognitive scaffoldings. Two different but complementary approaches to the investigation of situated cognition are presented: cognition-as-scaffolding and cognition-as-infrastructure. Classification-as-scaffolding views the classification scheme as a knowledge storage device supporting and promoting cognitive economy. Classification-as-infrastructure views the classification system as a social convention that, when integrated with technological structures and organisational practices, supports knowledge management work. Both approaches are shown to build upon and extend Wilson's contention that research is most productive when it attends to the social and organisational contexts of cognitive activity by focusing on the everyday world of work.
  7. Howarth, L.C.; Jansen, E.H.: Towards a typology of warrant for 21st century knowledge organization systems (2014) 0.03 
    0.029839888 = product of:
  0.089519665 = sum of:
    0.089519665 = sum of:
      0.04776592 = weight(_text_:system in 1425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04776592 = score(doc=1425,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16177002 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051362853 = queryNorm
          0.29527056 = fieldWeight in 1425, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1425)
      0.041753743 = weight(_text_:22 in 1425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041753743 = score(doc=1425,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17986396 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051362853 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1425, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1425)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    This paper returns to Beghtol's (1986) insightful typology of warrant to consider an empirical example of a traditional top-down hierarchical classification system as it continues to evolve in the early 21st century. Our examination considers there may be multiple warrants identified among the processes of design and the relationships to users of the National Occupational Classification (NOC), the standard occupational classification system published in Canada. We argue that this shift in semantic warrant signals a transition for traditional knowledge organization systems, and that warrant continues to be a relevant analytical concept and organizing principle, both within and beyond the domain of bibliographic control.
    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
  8. Dousa, T.M.: Categories and the architectonics of system in Julius Otto Kaiser's method of systematic indexing (2014) 0.03 
    0.027848562 = product of:
  0.083545685 = sum of:
    0.083545685 = sum of:
      0.048750892 = weight(_text_:system in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.048750892 = score(doc=1418,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.16177002 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051362853 = queryNorm
          0.30135927 = fieldWeight in 1418, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1418)
      0.03479479 = weight(_text_:22 in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03479479 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17986396 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051362853 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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
  9. Qin, J.: Evolving paradigms of knowledge representation and organization : a comparative study of classification, XML/DTD and ontology (2003) 0.03 
    0.026471168 = product of:
  0.03970675 = sum of:
    0.025788838 = weight(_text_:management in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025788838 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17312427 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051362853 = queryNorm
        0.14896142 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
    0.013917915 = product of:
      0.02783583 = sum of:
        0.02783583 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02783583 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17986396 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = 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(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    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
  10. 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 
    0.026471168 = product of:
  0.03970675 = sum of:
    0.025788838 = weight(_text_:management in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025788838 = score(doc=2346,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17312427 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051362853 = queryNorm
        0.14896142 = fieldWeight in 2346, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2346)
    0.013917915 = product of:
      0.02783583 = sum of:
        0.02783583 = weight(_text_:22 in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02783583 = score(doc=2346,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17986396 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = 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(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Date
    7.11.2008 15:22:04
    Theme
    Information Resources Management
  11. Szostak, R.: Classifying science : phenomena, data, theory, method, practice (2004) 0.03 
    0.02619645 = product of:
  0.039294675 = sum of:
    0.027353195 = weight(_text_:management in 325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027353195 = score(doc=325,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17312427 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051362853 = queryNorm
        0.15799746 = fieldWeight in 325, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=325)
    0.01194148 = product of:
      0.02388296 = sum of:
        0.02388296 = weight(_text_:system in 325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02388296 = score(doc=325,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16177002 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = queryNorm
            0.14763528 = fieldWeight in 325, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=325)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Classification is the essential first step in science. The study of science, as well as the practice of science, will thus benefit from a detailed classification of different types of science. In this book, science - defined broadly to include the social sciences and humanities - is first unpacked into its constituent elements: the phenomena studied, the data used, the theories employed, the methods applied, and the practices of scientists. These five elements are then classified in turn. Notably, the classifications of both theory types and methods allow the key strengths and weaknesses of different theories and methods to be readily discerned and compared. Connections across classifications are explored: should certain theories or phenomena be investigated only with certain methods? What is the proper function and form of scientific paradigms? Are certain common errors and biases in scientific practice associated with particular phenomena, data, theories, or methods? The classifications point to several ways of improving both specialized and interdisciplinary research and teaching, and especially of enhancing communication across communities of scholars. The classifications also support a superior system of document classification that would allow searches by theory and method used as well as causal links investigated.
    Content
    Inhalt: - Chapter 1: Classifying Science: 1.1. A Simple Classificatory Guideline - 1.2. The First "Cut" (and Plan of Work) - 1.3. Some Preliminaries - Chapter 2: Classifying Phenomena and Data: 2.1. Classifying Phenomena - 2.2. Classifying Data - Chapter 3: Classifying Theory: 3.1. Typology of Theory - 3.2. What Is a Theory? - 3.3. Evaluating Theories - 3.4. Types of Theory and the Five Types of Causation - 3.5. Classifying Individual Theories - 3.6. Advantages of a Typology of Theory - Chapter 4: Classifying Method: 4.1. Classifying Methods - 4.2. Typology of Strengths and Weaknesses of Methods - 4.3. Qualitative Versus Quantitative Analysis Revisited - 4.4. Evaluating Methods - 4.5. Classifying Particular Methods Within The Typology - 4.6. Advantages of a Typology of Methods - Chapter 5: Classifying Practice: 5.1. Errors and Biases in ScienceChapter - 5.2. Typology of (Critiques of) Scientific Practice - 5.3. Utilizing This Classification - 5.4. The Five Types of Ethical Analysis - Chapter 6: Drawing Connections Across These Classifications: 6.1. Theory and Method - 6.2. Theory (Method) and Phenomena (Data) - 6.3. Better Paradigms - 6.4. Critiques of Scientific Practice: Are They Correlated with Other Classifications? - Chapter 7: Classifying Scientific Documents: 7.1. Faceted or Enumerative? - 7.2. Classifying By Phenomena Studied - 7.3. Classifying By Theory Used - 7.4. Classifying By Method Used - 7.5 Links Among Subjects - 7.6. Type of Work, Language, and More - 7.7. Critiques of Scientific Practice - 7.8. Classifying Philosophy - 7.9. Evaluating the System - Chapter 8: Concluding Remarks: 8.1. The Classifications - 8.2. Advantages of These Various Classifications - 8.3. Drawing Connections Across Classifications - 8.4. Golden Mean Arguments - 8.5. Why Should Science Be Believed? - 8.6. How Can Science Be Improved? - 8.7. How Should Science Be Taught?
    Footnote
    Despite its methodological flaws and lack of empirical foundation, the book could potentially bring new ideas to current discussions within the practices of curriculum development and knowledge management as weIl as design of information systems, an classification schemes as tools for knowledge sharing, decision-making and knowledge exploration. I hesitate to recommend the book to students, except to students at advanced levels of study, because of its biased presentation of the new ideas and its basis an secondary literature."
    Series
    Information Science & Knowledge Management ; 7
  12. Molholt, P.: Qualities of classification schemes for the Information Superhighway (1995) 0.02 
    0.024866577 = product of:
  0.07459973 = sum of:
    0.07459973 = sum of:
      0.03980494 = weight(_text_:system in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03980494 = score(doc=5562,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16177002 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051362853 = queryNorm
          0.24605882 = fieldWeight in 5562, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5562)
      0.03479479 = weight(_text_:22 in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03479479 = score(doc=5562,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17986396 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051362853 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    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.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 21(1995) no.2, S.19-22
  13. Green, R.: Relational aspects of subject authority control : the contributions of classificatory structure (2015) 0.02 
    0.024866577 = product of:
  0.07459973 = sum of:
    0.07459973 = sum of:
      0.03980494 = weight(_text_:system in 2282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03980494 = score(doc=2282,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.16177002 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051362853 = queryNorm
          0.24605882 = fieldWeight in 2282, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2282)
      0.03479479 = weight(_text_:22 in 2282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03479479 = score(doc=2282,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17986396 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051362853 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2282, 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=2282)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    The structure of a classification system contributes in a variety of ways to representing semantic relationships between its topics in the context of subject authority control. We explore this claim using the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system as a case study. The DDC links its classes into a notational hierarchy, supplemented by a network of relationships between topics, expressed in class descriptions and in the Relative Index (RI). Topics/subjects are expressed both by the natural language text of the caption and notes (including Manual notes) in a class description and by the controlled vocabulary of the RI's alphabetic index, which shows where topics are treated in the classificatory structure. The expression of relationships between topics depends on paradigmatic and syntagmatic relationships between natural language terms in captions, notes, and RI terms; on the meaning of specific note types; and on references recorded between RI terms. The specific means used in the DDC for capturing hierarchical (including disciplinary), equivalence and associative relationships are surveyed.
    Date
    8.11.2015 21:27:22
  14. Mai, J.-E.: Is classification theory possible? : Rethinking classification research (2003) 0.02 
    0.02469825 = product of:
  0.037047375 = sum of:
    0.025788838 = weight(_text_:management in 2759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025788838 = score(doc=2759,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17312427 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051362853 = queryNorm
        0.14896142 = fieldWeight in 2759, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2759)
    0.011258536 = product of:
      0.022517072 = sum of:
        0.022517072 = weight(_text_:system in 2759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022517072 = score(doc=2759,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16177002 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = queryNorm
            0.13919188 = fieldWeight in 2759, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2759)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    1. Introduction Theoretical context independent explanations of classification could enhance the universality of classification research and make knowledge about classification available to settings other than traditional libraries. There is a tremendous need for constructing classificatory structures in a range of settings many of which are far removed from the environment in which classification theory and research has been practiced in the last century and a half. The construction of classificatory structures an the Internet, intranets, and in knowledge management systems has received some attention lately. The question examined here is whether it is possible to create a single theory of classification that applies to the range of contexts in which classificatory structures are applied. The object of this paper is to question the assumption that bibliographic classification theory can resemble scientific theories. It is argued that the context of any classification influences the use and understanding of the classification to such a degree that the classification cannot be understood separate from its context. Furthermore, the development from being a novice classifier or classificationist to becoming an expert is explored. lt is assumed scientific theories must relate as much to the activity of novices as to the activity of experts and that scientific theories explain both what it is that novices do and what experts do. It is argued that expertise is achieved not through a correct application of a classification theory but through experiences and adjustment to a particular context and that the activities of novices are quite distinct from the activities of experts in that experts draws an the context of the situation and that novices do not. 2. Theory of Classification Langridge (1976) provides an account of the principles of constructing knowledge organization systems and the theoretical underpinnings of different approaches. He identifies four principles that have guided construction of knowledge organization systems: 1) ideological, 2) social purpose, 3) scientific, and 4) the disciplines. The ideological principle organizes knowledge according to an ideology that the knowledge organization system serves. Langridge gives the examples of "the Christian schemes of the Middle Ages and the Soviet scheme which substitutes for the Bible and Christianity the works of Marx and Lenin and the 'religion' of communism" (Langridge, 1976, p. 4-5).
  15. Classification research for knowledge representation and organization : Proc. of the 5th Int. Study Conf. on Classification Research, Toronto, Canada, 24.-28.6.1991 (1992) 0.02 
    0.024152955 = product of:
  0.03622943 = sum of:
    0.019341629 = weight(_text_:management in 2072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019341629 = score(doc=2072,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17312427 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051362853 = queryNorm
        0.11172107 = fieldWeight in 2072, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2072)
    0.016887804 = product of:
      0.03377561 = sum of:
        0.03377561 = weight(_text_:system in 2072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03377561 = score(doc=2072,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.16177002 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = queryNorm
            0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 2072, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2072)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Content
    Enthält die Beiträge: SVENONIUS, E.: Classification: prospects, problems, and possibilities; BEALL, J.: Editing the Dewey Decimal Classification online: the evolution of the DDC database; BEGHTOL, C.: Toward a theory of fiction analysis for information storage and retrieval; CRAVEN, T.C.: Concept relation structures and their graphic display; FUGMANN, R.: Illusory goals in information science research; GILCHRIST, A.: UDC: the 1990's and beyond; GREEN, R.: The expression of syntagmatic relationships in indexing: are frame-based index languages the answer?; HUMPHREY, S.M.: Use and management of classification systems for knowledge-based indexing; MIKSA, F.L.: The concept of the universe of knowledge and the purpose of LIS classification; SCOTT, M. u. A.F. FONSECA: Methodology for functional appraisal of records and creation of a functional thesaurus; ALBRECHTSEN, H.: PRESS: a thesaurus-based information system for software reuse; AMAESHI, B.: A preliminary AAT compatible African art thesaurus; CHATTERJEE, A.: Structures of Indian classification systems of the pre-Ranganathan era and their impact on the Colon Classification; COCHRANE, P.A.: Indexing and searching thesauri, the Janus or Proteus of information retrieval; CRAVEN, T.C.: A general versus a special algorithm in the graphic display of thesauri; DAHLBERG, I.: The basis of a new universal classification system seen from a philosophy of science point of view: DRABENSTOTT, K.M., RIESTER, L.C. u. B.A.DEDE: Shelflisting using expert systems; FIDEL, R.: Thesaurus requirements for an intermediary expert system; GREEN, R.: Insights into classification from the cognitive sciences: ramifications for index languages; GROLIER, E. de: Towards a syndetic information retrieval system; GUENTHER, R.: The USMARC format for classification data: development and implementation; HOWARTH, L.C.: Factors influencing policies for the adoption and integration of revisions to classification schedules; HUDON, M.: Term definitions in subject thesauri: the Canadian literacy thesaurus experience; HUSAIN, S.: Notational techniques for the accomodation of subjects in Colon Classification 7th edition: theoretical possibility vis-à-vis practical need; KWASNIK, B.H. u. C. JORGERSEN: The exploration by means of repertory grids of semantic differences among names of official documents; MICCO, M.: Suggestions for automating the Library of Congress Classification schedules; PERREAULT, J.M.: An essay on the prehistory of general categories (II): G.W. Leibniz, Conrad Gesner; REES-POTTER, L.K.: How well do thesauri serve the social sciences?; REVIE, C.W. u. G. SMART: The construction and the use of faceted classification schema in technical domains; ROCKMORE, M.: Structuring a flexible faceted thsaurus record for corporate information retrieval; ROULIN, C.: Sub-thesauri as part of a metathesaurus; SMITH, L.C.: UNISIST revisited: compatibility in the context of collaboratories; STILES, W.G.: Notes concerning the use chain indexing as a possible means of simulating the inductive leap within artificial intelligence; SVENONIUS, E., LIU, S. u. B. SUBRAHMANYAM: Automation in chain indexing; TURNER, J.: Structure in data in the Stockshot database at the National Film Board of Canada; VIZINE-GOETZ, D.: The Dewey Decimal Classification as an online classification tool; WILLIAMSON, N.J.: Restructuring UDC: problems and possibilies; WILSON, A.: The hierarchy of belief: ideological tendentiousness in universal classification; WILSON, B.F.: An evaluation of the systematic botany schedule of the Universal Decimal Classification (English full edition, 1979); ZENG, L.: Research and development of classification and thesauri in China; CONFERENCE SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
  16. Satija, M.P.: Relationships in Ranganathan's Colon Classification (2001) 0.02 
    0.015043489 = product of:
  0.045130465 = sum of:
    0.045130465 = weight(_text_:management in 1155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045130465 = score(doc=1155,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17312427 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051362853 = queryNorm
        0.2606825 = fieldWeight in 1155, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1155)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Series
    Information science and knowledge management; vol.2
  17. Ullah, A.; Khusro, S.; Ullah, I.: Bibliographic classification in the digital age : current trends & future directions (2017) 0.02 
    0.015043489 = product of:
  0.045130465 = sum of:
    0.045130465 = weight(_text_:management in 5717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045130465 = score(doc=5717,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17312427 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051362853 = queryNorm
        0.2606825 = fieldWeight in 5717, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5717)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Abstract
    Bibliographic classification is among the core activities of Library & Information Science that brings order and proper management to the holdings of a library. Compared to printed media, digital collections present numerous challenges regarding their preservation, curation, organization and resource discovery & access. Therefore, true native perspective is needed to be adopted for bibliographic classification in digital environments. In this research article, we have investigated and reported different approaches to bibliographic classification of digital collections. The article also contributes two evaluation frameworks that evaluate the existing classification schemes and systems. The article presents a bird's-eye view for researchers in reaching a generalized and holistic approach towards bibliographic classification research, where new research avenues have been identified.
  18. Maniez, J.: ¬Des classifications aux thesaurus : du bon usage des facettes (1999) 0.01 
    0.013917915 = product of:
  0.041753743 = sum of:
    0.041753743 = product of:
      0.083507486 = sum of:
        0.083507486 = weight(_text_:22 in 6404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.083507486 = score(doc=6404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17986396 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    1. 8.1996 22:01:00
  19. Maniez, J.: ¬Du bon usage des facettes : des classifications aux thésaurus (1999) 0.01 
    0.013917915 = product of:
  0.041753743 = sum of:
    0.041753743 = product of:
      0.083507486 = sum of:
        0.083507486 = weight(_text_:22 in 3773) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.083507486 = score(doc=3773,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17986396 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    1. 8.1996 22:01:00
  20. Foskett, D.J.: Systems theory and its relevance to documentary classification (2017) 0.01 
    0.013917915 = product of:
  0.041753743 = sum of:
    0.041753743 = product of:
      0.083507486 = sum of:
        0.083507486 = weight(_text_:22 in 3176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.083507486 = score(doc=3176,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17986396 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051362853 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    Date
    6. 5.2017 18:46:22

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 69
  • f 3
  • d 2
  • chi 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 65
  • m 8
  • s 3
  • el 2
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications