-
Beghtol, C.: Relationships in classificatory structure and meaning (2001)
0.04
0.035183515 = product of:
0.08795879 = sum of:
0.04841807 = weight(_text_:context in 1138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04841807 = score(doc=1138,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
0.04251826 = queryNorm
0.27475408 = fieldWeight in 1138, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1138)
0.03954072 = weight(_text_:system in 1138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03954072 = score(doc=1138,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
0.04251826 = 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)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- 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.
-
Beghtol, C.: Classification theory (2010)
0.03
0.030551035 = product of:
0.076377586 = sum of:
0.04841807 = weight(_text_:context in 3761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04841807 = score(doc=3761,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
0.04251826 = queryNorm
0.27475408 = fieldWeight in 3761, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3761)
0.027959513 = weight(_text_:system in 3761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027959513 = score(doc=3761,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
0.04251826 = queryNorm
0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 3761, 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=3761)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- In the library and information sciences, classification theories are used primarily for knowledge organization, either in a manual or in a machine environment. In this context, classification theories have usually been developed initially as a support for specific knowledge organization classification systems, although the theories and the systems have influenced and re-influenced each other in particular ways throughout their lives. This entry discusses theories for knowledge organization classifications using examples from a number of classification systems, but no one system is discussed at length. Instead, the entry is organized into sections that deal first with classificatory issues in general and then with theories of content, theories of structure, and theories of notation for knowledge organization classifications.
-
Beghtol, C.: Toward a theory of fiction analysis for information storage and retrieval (1992)
0.03
0.027233064 = product of:
0.06808266 = sum of:
0.05272096 = weight(_text_:system in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.05272096 = score(doc=5830,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
0.04251826 = queryNorm
0.3936941 = fieldWeight in 5830, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5830)
0.015361699 = product of:
0.046085097 = sum of:
0.046085097 = weight(_text_:22 in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.046085097 = score(doc=5830,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04251826 = queryNorm
0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5830, 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=5830)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- This paper examnines various isues that arise in establishing a theoretical basis for an experimental fiction analysis system. It analyzes the warrants of fiction and of works about fiction. From this analysis, it derives classificatory requirements for a fiction system. Classificatory techniques that may contribute to the specification of data elements in fiction are suggested
- Date
- 5. 8.2006 13:22:08
-
Beghtol, C.: Naïve classification systems and the global information society (2004)
0.03
0.026664922 = product of:
0.066662304 = sum of:
0.057061244 = weight(_text_:context in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.057061244 = score(doc=3483,freq=4.0), product of:
0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
0.04251826 = queryNorm
0.32380077 = fieldWeight in 3483, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3483)
0.009601062 = product of:
0.028803186 = sum of:
0.028803186 = weight(_text_:22 in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.028803186 = score(doc=3483,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.04251826 = 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)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- 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.
- Pages
- S.19-22
-
Beghtol, C.: Semantic validity : concepts of warrants in bibliographic classification systems (1986)
0.03
0.025459195 = product of:
0.063647985 = sum of:
0.040348392 = weight(_text_:context in 3487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040348392 = score(doc=3487,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
0.04251826 = queryNorm
0.22896172 = fieldWeight in 3487, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3487)
0.023299592 = weight(_text_:system in 3487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.023299592 = score(doc=3487,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
0.04251826 = queryNorm
0.17398985 = fieldWeight in 3487, 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=3487)
0.4 = coord(2/5)
- Abstract
- This paper argues that the semantic axis of bibliographic classification systems can be found in the various warrants that have been used to justify the utility of classification systems. Classificationists, theorists, and critics have emphasized the syntactic aspects of classification theories and systems, but a number of semantic warrants can be identified. The evolution of four semantic warrants is traced through the development of twentieth-century classification theory: literary warrant, scientific/philosophical warrant, educational warrant, and cultural warrant. It is concluded that further examination of semantic warrants might make possible a rationalized approach to the creation of classification systems for particular uses. The attention of scholars on faceted schemes and classificatory structures had heretofore pulled our attention to the syntactic aspects (e.g., concept division and citation order), with semantics being considered more or less a question of the terms and their relationships and somewhat taken for granted, or at least construed as a unitary aspect. Attention is on the choice of the classes and their meaning, as well as their connection to the world, and not so much on their syntactic relationship. This notion is developed by providing an historical and conceptual overview of the various kinds of warrant discernible in working with bibliographic systems. In Beghtol's definition, warrant concerns more than just the selection of terms, but rather the mapping of a classification system to the context and uses.
-
Beghtol, C.: ¬The classification of fiction : the development of a system based on theoretical principles (1994)
0.01
0.0092261685 = product of:
0.04613084 = sum of:
0.04613084 = weight(_text_:system in 3413) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04613084 = score(doc=3413,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
0.04251826 = queryNorm
0.34448233 = fieldWeight in 3413, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3413)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Abstract
- The work is an adaptation of the author's dissertation and has the following chapters: (1) background and introduction; (2) a problem in classification theory; (3) previous fiction analysis theories and systems and 'The left hand of darkness'; (4) fiction warrant and critical warrant; (5) experimental fiction analysis system (EFAS); (6) application and evaluation of EFAS. Appendix 1 gives references to fiction analysis systems and appendix 2 lists EFAS coding sheets
-
Beghtol, C.: Classification for information retrieval and classification for knowledge discovery : relationships between "professional" and "naïve" classifications (2003)
0.01
0.008069678 = product of:
0.040348392 = sum of:
0.040348392 = weight(_text_:context in 3021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040348392 = score(doc=3021,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
0.04251826 = queryNorm
0.22896172 = fieldWeight in 3021, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3021)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Abstract
- Classification is a transdisciplinary activity that occurs during all human pursuits. Classificatory activity, however, serves different purposes in different situations. In information retrieval, the primary purpose of classification is to find knowledge that already exists, but one of the purposes of classification in other fields is to discover new knowledge. In this paper, classifications for information retrieval are called "professional" classifications because they are devised by people who have a professional interest in classification, and classifications for knowledge discovery are called "naive" classifications because they are devised by people who have no particular interest in studying classification as an end in itself. This paper compares the overall purposes and methods of these two kinds of classifications and provides a general model of the relationships between the two kinds of classificatory activity in the context of information studies. This model addresses issues of the influence of scholarly activity and communication an the creation and revision of classifications for the purposes of information retrieval and for the purposes of knowledge discovery. Further comparisons elucidate the relationships between the universality of classificatory methods and the specific purposes served by naive and professional classification systems.
-
Beghtol, C.: General classification systems : structural principles for multidisciplinary specification (1998)
0.01
0.007908144 = product of:
0.03954072 = sum of:
0.03954072 = weight(_text_:system in 44) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03954072 = score(doc=44,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
0.04251826 = queryNorm
0.29527056 = fieldWeight in 44, 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=44)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Abstract
- In this century, knowledge creation, production, dissemination and use have changed profoundly. Intellectual and physical barriers have been substantially reduced by the rise of multidisciplinarity and by the influence of computerization, particularly by the spread of the World Wide Web (WWW). Bibliographic classification systems need to respond to this situation. Three possible strategic responses are described: 1) adopting an existing system; 2) adapting an existing system; and 3) finding new structural principles for classification systems. Examples of these three responses are given. An extended example of the third option uses the knowledge outline in the Spectrum of Britannica Online to suggest a theory of "viewpoint warrant" that could be used to incorporate differing perspectives into general classification systems
-
Beghtol, C.: ¬A whole, its kinds, and its parts (2000)
0.01
0.00745587 = product of:
0.03727935 = sum of:
0.03727935 = weight(_text_:system in 91) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03727935 = score(doc=91,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
0.04251826 = queryNorm
0.27838376 = fieldWeight in 91, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=91)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Abstract
- Different types of subdivision may be used throughout the same classification system. This paper presents exploratory research into "wholes", "kinds" and "parts" as they relate to the theory and practice of bibliographic classification. Some problems of consistently identifying different kinds of subdivision and of the ambiguities of their relationships are discussed. Some implications of these issues for dynamism and stability in classification systems are addressed
-
Beghtol, C.: Exploring new approaches to the organization of knowledge : the subject classification of James Duff Brown (2004)
0.01
0.0055919024 = product of:
0.027959513 = sum of:
0.027959513 = weight(_text_:system in 869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.027959513 = score(doc=869,freq=2.0), product of:
0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
0.04251826 = queryNorm
0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 869, 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=869)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Abstract
- James Duff Brown was an influential and energetic librarian in Great Britain in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. His Subject Classification has characteristics that were unusual and idiosyncratic during his own time, but his work deserves recognition as one of the precursors of modern bibliographic classification systems. This article discusses a number of theories and classification practices that Brown developed. In particular, it investigates his views on the order of main classes, on the phenomenon of "concrete" subjects, and on the need for synthesized notations. It traces these ideas briefly into the future through the work of S. R. Ranganathan, the Classification Research Group, and the second edition of the Bliss Bibliographic Classification system. It concludes that Brown's work warrants further study for the light it may shed on current classification theory and practice.
-
Beghtol, C.: Response to Hjoerland and Nicolaisen (2004)
0.00
0.0046130843 = product of:
0.02306542 = sum of:
0.02306542 = weight(_text_:system in 3536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02306542 = score(doc=3536,freq=4.0), product of:
0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
0.04251826 = queryNorm
0.17224117 = fieldWeight in 3536, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3536)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Abstract
- I am writing to correct some of the misconceptions that Hjoerland and Nicolaisen appear to have about my paper in the previous issue of Knowledge Organization. I would like to address aspects of two of these misapprehensions. The first is the faulty interpretation they have given to my use of the term "naïve classification," and the second is the kinds of classification systems that they appear to believe are discussed in my paper as examples of "naïve classifications." First, the term "naïve classification" is directly analogous to the widely-understood and widelyaccepted term "naïve indexing." It is not analogous to the terms to which Hjorland and Nicolaisen compare it (i.e., "naïve physics", "naïve biology"). The term as I have defined it is not pejorative. It does not imply that the scholars who have developed naïve classifications have not given profoundly serious thought to their own scholarly work. My paper distinguishes between classifications for new knowledge developed by scholars in the various disciplines for the purposes of advancing disciplinary knowledge ("naïve classifications") and classifications for previously existing knowledge developed by information professionals for the purposes of creating access points in information retrieval systems ("professional classifications"). This distinction rests primarily an the purpose of the kind of classification system in question and only secondarily an the knowledge base of the scholars who have created it. Hjoerland and Nicolaisen appear to have misunderstood this point, which is made clearly and adequately in the title, in the abstract and throughout the text of my paper.
Second, the paper posits that these different reasons for creating classification systems strongly influence the content and extent of the two kinds of classifications, but not necessarily their structures. By definition, naïve classifications for new knowledge have been developed for discrete areas of disciplinary inquiry in new areas of knowledge. These classifications do not attempt to classify the whole of that disciplinary area. That is, naïve classifications have a explicit purpose that is significantly different from the purpose of the major disciplinary classifications Hjoer-land and Nicolaisen provide as examples of classifications they think I discuss under the rubric of "naïve classifications" (e.g., classifications for the entire field of archaeology, biology, linguistics, music, psychology, etc.). My paper is not concerned with these important classifications for major disciplinary areas. Instead, it is concerned solely and specifically with scholarly classifications for small areas of new knowledge within these major disciplines (e.g., cloth of aresta, double harpsichords, child-rearing practices, anomalous phenomena, etc.). Thus, I have nowhere suggested or implied that the broad disciplinary classifications mentioned by Hjoerland and Nicolaisen are appropriately categorized as "naïve classifications." For example, I have not associated the Periodic System of the Elements with naïve classifications, as Hjoerland and Nicolaisen state that I have done. Indeed, broad classifications of this type fall well outside the definition of naïve classifications set out in my paper. In this case, too, 1 believe that Hjorland and Nicolaisen have misunderstood an important point in my paper. I agree with a number of points made in Hjorland and Nicolaisen's paper. In particular, I agree that researchers in the knowledge organization field should adhere to the highest standards of scholarly and scientific precision. For that reason, I am glad to have had the opportunity to respond to their paper.
-
Beghtol, C.: ¬The facet concept as a universal principle of subdivision (2006)
0.00
0.0027127003 = product of:
0.013563501 = sum of:
0.013563501 = product of:
0.0406905 = sum of:
0.0406905 = weight(_text_:29 in 1483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.0406905 = score(doc=1483,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.04251826 = queryNorm
0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 1483, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1483)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.2 = coord(1/5)
- Date
- 29. 2.2008 19:19:30
