Search (30 results, page 1 of 2)

0.021112198 = product of:
  0.052780494 = sum of:
    0.03727935 = weight(_text_:system in 1476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03727935 = score(doc=1476,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.27838376 = fieldWeight in 1476, 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=1476)
    0.015501143 = product of:
      0.04650343 = sum of:
        0.04650343 = weight(_text_:29 in 1476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04650343 = score(doc=1476,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 1476, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1476)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Discusses the origin and evolution of the Information Coding Classification (ICC); its theoretical basis, and structure and advantageous attributes for organizing knowledge. Pleads that the considerable work already done on the system should be taken up and developed by interested research groups through collaborative effort. Concludes with some thoughts on the future of knowledge organization for information retrieval and other applications

Date

29. 2.2008 13:41:01

0.01491174 = product of:
  0.0745587 = sum of:
    0.0745587 = weight(_text_:system in 668) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0745587 = score(doc=668,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.5567675 = fieldWeight in 668, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=668)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.013047772 = product of:
  0.06523886 = sum of:
    0.06523886 = weight(_text_:system in 67) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06523886 = score(doc=67,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.4871716 = fieldWeight in 67, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=67)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

0.011299702 = product of:
  0.056498513 = sum of:
    0.056498513 = weight(_text_:system in 3614) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056498513 = score(doc=3614,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.42190298 = fieldWeight in 3614, 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=3614)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Research history of the last 70 years highlights various systems for contents assessment and retrieval of scientific literature, such as universal classifications, thesauri, ontologies etc., which have followed developments of their own, notwithstanding a general trend towards interoperability, i.e. either to become instruments for cooperation or to widen their scope to encompass neighbouring fields within their framework. In the case of thesauri and ontologies, the endeavour to upgrade them into a universal system was bound to miscarry. This paper purports to indicate ways to gain from past experience and possibly rally material achievements while updating and promoting the ontologically-based faceted Information Coding Classification as a progressive universal system fit for meeting whatever requirements in the fields of information and science at large.

0.011183805 = product of:
  0.055919025 = sum of:
    0.055919025 = weight(_text_:system in 2100) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055919025 = score(doc=2100,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.41757566 = fieldWeight in 2100, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2100)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The implications of contributions from philosophy of science to classification theory and the construction of a new universal classification system are discussed. Starting from the purposes of universal systems and what has been considered so far to serve as main classes of the six existing major universal systems, the following theories have been treated: Theory of (1) knowledge, (2) knowledge elements and units, (3) systems, (4) the science concept, (5) knowledge fields including criteria for their identification, (6) a logical syntax, (7) an overall structure of object and aspect areas. Concludingly an evaluation was made with special regard to the representability (notation) of such a theory-based universal concept system by computer and in telecommunication. This, as well as the heuristics contained in such a theory-based system facilitate its general applicability

0.00968546 = product of:
  0.048427295 = sum of:
    0.048427295 = weight(_text_:system in 5171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048427295 = score(doc=5171,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.36163113 = fieldWeight in 5171, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5171)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

A multitude of library catalogs are now being entered into the Internet. Their differing classification and subject headings systems used for subject access call for a switching system, a black box to facilitate the location of subject fields and their subjects in these systems. The principles on which such a switching system must be built in order to provide the necessary insight, surveyability, reproducebility and ease of concept combinability (e.g. in cases of interdisciplinary subjects) are outlined and compared with the BSO which hance once been established by the FID in order to serve a switching purpose. The advantages of using the Information Coding Classification (ICC) as a switching system in the Internet are demonstrated, likewise the methodology needed to establish the necessary correlation between library classification systems (and if possible also subject heading systems and thesauri) and the ICC. Finally some organizational implications for creating a switching for 6 universal systems in use are described

0.00968546 = product of:
  0.048427295 = sum of:
    0.048427295 = weight(_text_:system in 2103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048427295 = score(doc=2103,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.36163113 = fieldWeight in 2103, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2103)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

So far terminological work has been mainly directed towards defining very special concepts. The more general ones, e.g. those denoting subject-fields have been neglected with the result that communication on this level has been seriously hampered. There exists a great number of such terms and also a growing trend for the formation of new ones. In the FRG an R&D project was started in 1972 with the collection of names of subject fields, it is intended to assemble their definitions in a dictionary and to build a general concept system by computercomparison of their characteristics as provided by their definitions. The nature of subject-fields is explained, details on the German collection are given as well as some results from a formal analysis of their concepts. It is proposed to initiate similar projects in other linguistic regions as well; this could be done under the auspices of Infoterm. Some application-possibilities for a general concept-system (e. g. a broad system of ordering) are given. The annex displays a scheme of 9 subject areas and about 90 subareas for the sorting of names of subject fields

0.008071217 = product of:
  0.04035608 = sum of:
    0.04035608 = weight(_text_:system in 2104) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04035608 = score(doc=2104,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.30135927 = fieldWeight in 2104, 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=2104)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

So far terminological work has been mainly directed towards defining very special concepts. The more general ones, e.g. those denoting subject-fields have been neglected with the result that communication on this level has been seriously hampered. There exists a great number of such terms and also a growing trend for the formation of new ones. In the FRG an R&D project was started in 1972 with the collection of names of subject fields, it is intended to assemble their definitions in a dictionary and to build a general concept system by computercomparison of their characteristics as provided by their definitions. The nature of subject-fields is explained, details on the German collection are given as well as some results from a formal analysis of their concepts. It is proposed to initiate similar projects in other linguistic regions as well; this could be done under the auspices of Infoterm. Some application-possibilities for a general concept-system (e. g. a broad system of ordering) are given. The annex displays a scheme of 9 subject areas and about 90 subareas for the sorting of names of subject fields.

0.007908144 = product of:
  0.03954072 = sum of:
    0.03954072 = weight(_text_:system in 1238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03954072 = score(doc=1238,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.29527056 = fieldWeight in 1238, 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=1238)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Presentation of the design, characteristics and application possibilities of a new universal classification system called ICC which is based on the premises that whenever information is to be generated or to be presented (in coded form) at least two items are necessary one of which plays the part of a subject and the other one that of the predicate of a sentence, with both these items being framed into a third one. The first basic division is by the categorial concepts denoting general entities and general aspects/determinations of being, framed into an evolutionary pattern of levels creating the 81 subject groups of ICC. Each of these subject groups is structured by a socalled systematifier, applying a recurring series of facets. The overall structure is explained and some of its application fields are outlined

Footnote

Das System wird angewendet in den verschiedenen Ausgaben der 'International Classification and Indexing Bibliography' und in der laufenden Bibliographie in 'International Classification'

0.0076808496 = product of:
  0.03840425 = sum of:
    0.03840425 = product of:
      0.115212746 = sum of:
        0.115212746 = weight(_text_:22 in 1612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.115212746 = score(doc=1612,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.77380234 = fieldWeight in 1612, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=1612)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

DK-Mitteilungen. 22(1978) Nr.5/6, S.13-18

0.0076808496 = product of:
  0.03840425 = sum of:
    0.03840425 = product of:
      0.115212746 = sum of:
        0.115212746 = weight(_text_:22 in 1625) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.115212746 = score(doc=1625,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.77380234 = fieldWeight in 1625, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=1625)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Nachrichten für Dokumentation. 26(1975), S.22-25

0.0076808496 = product of:
  0.03840425 = sum of:
    0.03840425 = product of:
      0.115212746 = sum of:
        0.115212746 = weight(_text_:22 in 1630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.115212746 = score(doc=1630,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.77380234 = fieldWeight in 1630, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=1630)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

International classification. 8(1981), S.16-22

0.00745587 = product of:
  0.03727935 = sum of:
    0.03727935 = weight(_text_:system in 5218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03727935 = score(doc=5218,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.27838376 = fieldWeight in 5218, 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=5218)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Outlines previous work done in the field of compatibility between indexing langugaes (IL), and describes the scope, limitations and advantages of establishing compatibility between IL. Suggests methods for verbal comparisons between IL as well as generation of an alphabetical comparison matrix M1. Conceptual comparisons, however, demand a conceptual reorganization of M1 into a compatibiliy matrix M2 with its two alternatices, namely a system-related matrix M3 and a hierarchical matrix M4. In conclusion, the use of a compatibility matrix and organizational problems are described

0.00745587 = product of:
  0.03727935 = sum of:
    0.03727935 = weight(_text_:system in 6315) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03727935 = score(doc=6315,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.27838376 = fieldWeight in 6315, 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=6315)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Sketch of historical development of knowledge organization and presentation of its scope as shown by the contents of the literature service, now called 'Knowledge Organization Literature'. The scheme is explained and shown on its three levels as well as its correlation to a universal classification system of knowledge fields, the 'Information Coding Classification'. The possibilities of Knowledge Organization as a help for everybody, especially also students and above all students of education, and a help for political, industrial and social leaders are discussed. 10 measures for consideration and activation are listed

0.0069898777 = product of:
  0.03494939 = sum of:
    0.03494939 = weight(_text_:system in 4300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03494939 = score(doc=4300,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.26098478 = fieldWeight in 4300, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4300)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

1. Recognize the units in an order system (classification system, thesaurus, ontology, etc.) as concepts/knowledge units, analyse their essential characteristics, and use these characteristics when creating a Knowledge Order System. 2. Recognize the units in an order system (classification system, thesaurus, ontology, etc.) as concepts/knowledge units, analyse their essential characteristics, and use these characteristics when creating a Knowledge Order System. 3. An ISKO group should elaborate a curriculum for the various KO activities to be published after approval by the ISKO Executive Board (EB). Together with this, the qualifying titles of different professionals (teacher, professor, system designer etc.) should also be discussed by the ISKO EB, adopted and proposed for acknowledgement by official institutions; and, 2) It may be possible for ISKO to establish its own Academy and also take care of teaching with the elaborated curricula. 4. Every national ISKO Chapter and the General Secretariat should make efforts to employ a paid expert for the necessary secretarial work, and seek financial support therefore from national or international organizations, in order to become more professionalised. 5. The ISKO Executive Board should decide to elaborate and publish an order system of all KO-relevant concepts to serve as a model and perhaps sometimes as a standard for similar work in other scientific disciplines and knowledge fields.
6. Establishment of national Knowledge Organization Institutes should be scheduled by national chapters, planned energetically and submitted to corresponding administrative authorities for support. They could be attached to research institutions, e.g., the Max-Planck or Fraunhofer Institutes in Germany or to universities. Their scope and research areas relate to the elaboration of knowledge systems of subject related concepts, according to Desideratum 1, and may be connected to training activities and KOsubject-related research work. 7. ISKO experts should not accept to be impressed by Internet and Computer Science, but should demonstrate their expertise more actively on the public plane. They should tend to take a leading part in the ISKO Secretariats and the KO Institutes, and act as consultants and informants, as well as editors of statistics and other publications. 8. All colleagues trained in the field of classification/indexing and thesauri construction and active in different countries should be identified and approached for membership in ISKO. This would have to be accomplished by the General Secretariat with the collaboration of the experts in the different secretariats of the countries, as soon as they start to work. The more members ISKO will have, the greater will be its reputation and influence. But it will also prove its professionalism by the quality of its products, especially its innovating conceptual order systems to come. 9. ISKO should-especially in view of global expansion-intensify the promotion of knowledge about its own subject area through the publications mentioned here and in further publications as deemed necessary. It should be made clear that, especially in ISKO's own publications, professional subject indexes are a sine qua non. 10. 1) Knowledge Organization, having arisen from librarianship and documentation, the contents of which has many points of contact with numerous application fields, should-although still linked up with its areas of descent-be recognized in the long run as an independent autonomous discipline to be located under the science of science, since only thereby can it fully play its role as an equal partner in all application fields; and, 2) An "at-a-first-glance knowledge order" could be implemented through the Information Coding Classification (ICC), as this system is based on an entirely new approach, namely based on general object areas, thus deviating from discipline-oriented main classes of the current main universal classification systems. It can therefore recoup by simple display on screen the hitherto lost overview of all knowledge areas and fields. On "one look", one perceives 9 object areas subdivided into 9 aspects which break down into 81 subject areas with their 729 subject fields, including further special fields. The synthesis and place of order of all knowledge becomes thus evident at a glance to everybody. Nobody would any longer be irritated by the abundance of singular apparently unrelated knowledge fields or become hesitant in his/her understanding of the world.

0.0065901205 = product of:
  0.032950602 = sum of:
    0.032950602 = weight(_text_:system in 5563) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032950602 = score(doc=5563,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.24605882 = fieldWeight in 5563, 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=5563)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Some time ago, some people said classification is dead, we don't need it any more. They probably thought that subject headings could do the job of the necessary subject analysis and shelving of books. However, all of a sudden in 1984 the attitude changed, when an OCLC study of Karen Markey started to show what could be done even with an "outdated system" such as the Dewey Decimal Classification in the computer, once it was visible on a screen to show the helpfulness of a classified library catalogue called an OPAC; classification was brought back into the minds of doubtful librarians and of all those who thought they would not need it any longer. But the problem once phrased: "We are stuck with the two old systems, LCC and DDC" would not find a solution and is still with us today. We know that our systems are outdated but we seem still to be unable to replace them with better ones. What then should one do and advise, knowing that we need something better? Perhaps a new universal ordering system which more adequately represents and mediates the world of our present day knowledge? If we were to develop it from scratch, how would we create it and implement it in such a way that it would be acceptable to the majority of the present intellectual world population?

0.0065901205 = product of:
  0.032950602 = sum of:
    0.032950602 = weight(_text_:system in 4824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032950602 = score(doc=4824,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.24605882 = fieldWeight in 4824, 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=4824)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

General concepts are all those form-categorial concepts which - attached to a specific concept of a classification system or thesaurus - can help to widen, sometimes even in a syntactical sense, the understanding of a case. In some existing universal classification systems such concepts have been named "auxiliaries" or "common isolates" as in the Colon Classification (CC). However, by such auxiliaries, different kinds of such concepts are listed, e.g. concepts of space and time, concepts of races and languages and concepts of kinds of documents, next to them also concepts of kinds of general activities, properties, persons, and institutions. Such latter kinds form part of the nine aspects ruling the facets in the Information Coding Classification (ICC) through the principle of using a Systematiser for the subdivision of subject groups and fields. Based on this principle and using and extending existing systems of such concepts, e.g. which A. Diemer had presented to the German Thesaurus Committee as well as those found in the UDC, in CC and attached to the Subject Heading System of the German National Library, a faceted classification is proposed for critical assessment, necessary improvement and possible later use in classification systems and thesauri.

0.006523886 = product of:
  0.03261943 = sum of:
    0.03261943 = weight(_text_:system in 3375) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03261943 = score(doc=3375,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.2435858 = fieldWeight in 3375, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3375)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In ISKO's name, the term "Knowledge Organization" (KO) denotes already the object and the activity area significant for the existence of any science. Both areas are outlined and their specific contents shown. Also a survey of its special subfields is given. The sciencetheoretical foundation of Knowledge Organization as a new scientific discipline is based on the propositional concept of science. Within a universal system of the sciences, KO has been regarded as a subfield of Science of Science. Concludingly it is proposed to find the necessary institution for work in concerted effort of scientists, knowledge organizers and terminologists on the collection, definition, and systematization of concepts of all subject fields, utilizing the Information Coding Classification (ICC) as the necessary categorizing structure.

0.006523886 = product of:
  0.03261943 = sum of:
    0.03261943 = weight(_text_:system in 3273) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03261943 = score(doc=3273,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.2435858 = fieldWeight in 3273, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3273)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Starting from the premise that extant knowledge of the discipline of Knowledge Organization ought to be made accessible by its knowledge units (concepts) this article includes short descriptions of the work of E.Wuester (Austria) and F. Riggs (USA) who both had laid foundations in this field. A noematic concept of knowledge (Diemer 1962, 474) is used for the necessary work to be done. It is shown how a concept-theoretical approach (relying on the characteristics of concepts and their system-building capacity) can be applied for pertinent terminological work. Earlier work in this regard by standardization bodies is mentioned. Seven necessary steps towards accomplishment are outlined.

0.006523886 = product of:
  0.03261943 = sum of:
    0.03261943 = weight(_text_:system in 3235) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03261943 = score(doc=3235,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.2435858 = fieldWeight in 3235, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3235)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Nach einer einleitenden Diskussion der Benennungen Dokumentenkunde und Dokumentologie wird der diesbezügliche Objektbereich der Informationswissenschaft begründet. Es wird dazu eine Systematik vorgestellt, die von 1968 bis 1970 vom UDC-Revisions-Komitee 03/04 mit etwa 2000 Begriffen und Codes auf 37 Seiten erarbeitet und von der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Dokumentation nur in wenigen Kopien gedruckt und bislang noch nicht allgemein publik gemacht wurde. Das System wurde auch vom FID Central Classification Committee weder verabschiedet noch publiziert. Die Tabellen werden aus Platzgründen kumuliert wiedergegeben. Abschließend wird ein Vorschlag für eine neue Gliederung unterbreitet und die Verwendung der Systematik im Zusammenhang mit der Information Coding Classification erörtert.