Search (109 results, page 1 of 6)

0.1402445 = product of:
  0.17530562 = sum of:
    0.040348392 = weight(_text_:context in 2282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040348392 = score(doc=2282,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.22896172 = fieldWeight in 2282, 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=2282)
    0.06342807 = weight(_text_:index in 2282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06342807 = score(doc=2282,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.3413878 = fieldWeight in 2282, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2282)
    0.032950602 = weight(_text_:system in 2282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032950602 = score(doc=2282,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = 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)
    0.038578555 = product of:
      0.057867832 = sum of:
        0.029064644 = weight(_text_:29 in 2282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029064644 = score(doc=2282,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 2282, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2282)
        0.028803186 = weight(_text_:22 in 2282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028803186 = score(doc=2282,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.8 = coord(4/5)

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

Source

Classification and authority control: expanding resource discovery: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar 2015, 29-30 October 2015, Lisbon, Portugal. Eds.: Slavic, A. u. M.I. Cordeiro

0.09589066 = product of:
  0.15981777 = sum of:
    0.10986064 = weight(_text_:index in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10986064 = score(doc=1418,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.591301 = fieldWeight in 1418, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1418)
    0.04035608 = weight(_text_:system in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04035608 = score(doc=1418,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = 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)
    0.009601062 = product of:
      0.028803186 = sum of:
        0.028803186 = weight(_text_:22 in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028803186 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = 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)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

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

0.061602414 = product of:
  0.102670684 = sum of:
    0.05648775 = weight(_text_:context in 169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05648775 = score(doc=169,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.32054642 = fieldWeight in 169, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=169)
    0.03261943 = weight(_text_:system in 169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03261943 = score(doc=169,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.2435858 = fieldWeight in 169, 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=169)
    0.013563501 = product of:
      0.0406905 = sum of:
        0.0406905 = weight(_text_:29 in 169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0406905 = score(doc=169,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 169, 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=169)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

While taxonomies are being increasingly discussed in published and grey literature, the term taxonomy still seems to be stated quite loosely and obscurely. This paper aims at explaining and clarifying the concept of taxonomy in the context of information organization. To this end, the salient features of taxonomies are identified and their scope, nature, and role are further elaborated based on an extensive literature review. In the meantime, the connection and distinctions between taxonomies and classification schemes and thesauri are also identified, and the rationale that taxonomies are chosen as a viable knowledge organization system used in organization-wide websites to support browsing and aid navigation is clarified.

Date

11. 3.2007 14:20:29

0.05604352 = product of:
  0.093405865 = sum of:
    0.0538205 = weight(_text_:index in 2651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0538205 = score(doc=2651,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.28967714 = fieldWeight in 2651, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2651)
    0.027959513 = weight(_text_:system in 2651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027959513 = score(doc=2651,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = 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)
    0.011625858 = product of:
      0.034877572 = sum of:
        0.034877572 = weight(_text_:29 in 2651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034877572 = score(doc=2651,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 2651, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2651)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

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

Date

29. 8.2004 14:20:40

0.054135233 = product of:
  0.09022538 = sum of:
    0.024209036 = weight(_text_:context in 2072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024209036 = score(doc=2072,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.13737704 = fieldWeight in 2072, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2072)
    0.03805684 = weight(_text_:index in 2072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03805684 = score(doc=2072,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.20483267 = fieldWeight in 2072, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2072)
    0.027959513 = weight(_text_:system in 2072) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027959513 = score(doc=2072,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = 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)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

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

0.04356857 = product of:
  0.10892142 = sum of:
    0.06279058 = weight(_text_:index in 3530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06279058 = score(doc=3530,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.33795667 = fieldWeight in 3530, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3530)
    0.04613084 = weight(_text_:system in 3530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04613084 = score(doc=3530,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.34448233 = fieldWeight in 3530, 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=3530)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Classes in the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system function as neighborhoods around focal topics in captions and notes. Topical neighborhoods are generated through specialization and instantiation, complex topic synthesis, index terms and mapped headings, hierarchical force, rules for choosing between numbers, development of the DDC over time, and use of the system in classifying resources. Implications of representation using a formal knowledge representation language are explored.

0.042719655 = product of:
  0.10679913 = sum of:
    0.09129799 = weight(_text_:context in 5099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09129799 = score(doc=5099,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.51808125 = fieldWeight in 5099, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5099)
    0.015501143 = product of:
      0.04650343 = sum of:
        0.04650343 = weight(_text_:29 in 5099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04650343 = score(doc=5099,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 5099, 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=5099)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to define what is meant by facet analysis, and to review briefly the history of facet analysis within the context of other types of subject analysis in libraries and within the context of information retrieval research

Date

20. 8.2006 12:29:16

0.036326833 = product of:
  0.09081708 = sum of:
    0.0721774 = weight(_text_:context in 2759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0721774 = score(doc=2759,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.4095792 = fieldWeight in 2759, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2759)
    0.018639674 = weight(_text_:system in 2759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018639674 = score(doc=2759,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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).

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.

0.032692056 = product of:
  0.054486755 = sum of:
    0.03139529 = weight(_text_:index in 1782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03139529 = score(doc=1782,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.16897833 = fieldWeight in 1782, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1782)
    0.016309716 = weight(_text_:system in 1782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016309716 = score(doc=1782,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.1217929 = fieldWeight in 1782, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1782)
    0.0067817504 = product of:
      0.02034525 = sum of:
        0.02034525 = weight(_text_:29 in 1782) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02034525 = score(doc=1782,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.13602862 = fieldWeight in 1782, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1782)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

Logic and the Organization of Information closely examines the historical and contemporary methodologies used to catalogue information objects-books, ebooks, journals, articles, web pages, images, emails, podcasts and more-in the digital era. This book provides an in-depth technical background for digital librarianship, and covers a broad range of theoretical and practical topics including: classification theory, topic annotation, automatic clustering, generalized synonymy and concept indexing, distributed libraries, semantic web ontologies and Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS). It also analyzes the challenges facing today's information architects, and outlines a series of techniques for overcoming them. Logic and the Organization of Information is intended for practitioners and professionals working at a design level as a reference book for digital librarianship. Advanced-level students, researchers and academics studying information science, library science, digital libraries and computer science will also find this book invaluable.

Date

16. 3.2012 11:26:29

Footnote

Rez. in: J. Doc. 70(2014) no.4: "Books on the organization of information and knowledge, aimed at a library/information audience, tend to fall into two clear categories. Most are practical and pragmatic, explaining the "how" as much or more than the "why". Some are theoretical, in part or in whole, showing how the practice of classification, indexing, resource description and the like relates to philosophy, logic, and other foundational bases; the books by Langridge (1992) and by Svenonious (2000) are well-known examples this latter kind. To this category certainly belongs a recent book by Martin Frické (2012). The author takes the reader for an extended tour through a variety of aspects of information organization, including classification and taxonomy, alphabetical vocabularies and indexing, cataloguing and FRBR, and aspects of the semantic web. The emphasis throughout is on showing how practice is, or should be, underpinned by formal structures; there is a particular emphasis on first order predicate calculus. The advantages of a greater, and more explicit, use of symbolic logic is a recurring theme of the book. There is a particularly commendable historical dimension, often omitted in texts on this subject. It cannot be said that this book is entirely an easy read, although it is well written with a helpful index, and its arguments are generally well supported by clear and relevant examples. It is thorough and detailed, but thereby seems better geared to the needs of advanced students and researchers than to the practitioners who are suggested as a main market. For graduate students in library/information science and related disciplines, in particular, this will be a valuable resource. I would place it alongside Svenonious' book as the best insight into the theoretical "why" of information organization. It has evoked a good deal of interest, including a set of essay commentaries in Journal of Information Science (Gilchrist et al., 2013). Introducing these, Alan Gilchrist rightly says that Frické deserves a salute for making explicit the fundamental relationship between the ancient discipline of logic and modern information organization. If information science is to continue to develop, and make a contribution to the organization of the information environments of the future, then this book sets the groundwork for the kind of studies which will be needed." (D. Bawden)

0.032144334 = product of:
  0.08036084 = sum of:
    0.057061244 = weight(_text_:context in 4494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057061244 = score(doc=4494,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.32380077 = fieldWeight in 4494, 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=4494)
    0.023299592 = weight(_text_:system in 4494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023299592 = score(doc=4494,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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.

0.032039743 = product of:
  0.08009935 = sum of:
    0.068473496 = weight(_text_:context in 5516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068473496 = score(doc=5516,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.38856095 = fieldWeight in 5516, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5516)
    0.011625858 = product of:
      0.034877572 = sum of:
        0.034877572 = weight(_text_:29 in 5516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034877572 = score(doc=5516,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 5516, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5516)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This paper addresses the process of adapting to a particular culture or context a classification that has grown out of western culture to become a global standard. The authors use a project that adapts DDC for use in a feminist/women's issues context to demonstrate an approach that works. The project is particularly useful as an interdisciplinary example. Discussion consists of four parts: (1) definition of the problem indicating the need for adaptation and efforts to date; (2) description of the methodology developed for creating an expansion; (3) description of the interface developed for actually doing the work, with its potential for a distributed group to work on it together (could even be internationally distributed); and (4) generalization of how the methodology could be used for particular contexts by country, ethnicity, perspective or other defining factors.

Date

30. 7.2006 16:38:29

0.030841175 = product of:
  0.07710294 = sum of:
    0.050742455 = weight(_text_:index in 3636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050742455 = score(doc=3636,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.27311024 = fieldWeight in 3636, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3636)
    0.02636048 = weight(_text_:system in 3636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02636048 = score(doc=3636,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.19684705 = fieldWeight in 3636, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3636)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Brian C. Vickery, Director and Professor, School of Library, Archive and Information Studies, University College, London, is a prolific writer on classification and information retrieval. This paper was one of the earliest to present initial efforts by the Classification Research Group (q.v.). In it he clearly outlined the need for classification in subject indexing, which, at the time he wrote, was not a commonplace understanding. In fact, some indexing systems were made in the first place specifically to avoid general classification systems which were out of date in all fast-moving disciplines, especially in the "hard" sciences. Vickery picked up Julia Pettee's work (q.v.) an the concealed classification in subject headings (1947) and added to it, mainly adopting concepts from the work of S. R. Ranganathan (q.v.). He had already published a paper an notation in classification, pointing out connections between notation, words, and the concepts which they represent. He was especially concerned about the structure of notational symbols as such symbols represented relationships among subjects. Vickery also emphasized that index terms cover all aspects of a subject so that, in addition to having a basis in classification, the ideal index system should also have standardized nomenclature, as weIl as show evidence of a systematic classing of elementary terms. The necessary linkage between system and terms should be one of a number of methods, notably:

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.

0.028020501 = product of:
  0.07005125 = sum of:
    0.05648775 = weight(_text_:context in 3840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05648775 = score(doc=3840,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.32054642 = fieldWeight in 3840, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3840)
    0.013563501 = product of:
      0.0406905 = sum of:
        0.0406905 = weight(_text_:29 in 3840) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0406905 = score(doc=3840,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 3840, 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=3840)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This article provides a historical overview and conceptual clarification of the idea of integrative levels as an organizing principle. It will be demonstrated that this concept has found different articulations (e.g., levels of integration, levels of organization, levels of complexity, levels of granularity, nested hierarchy, specification hierarchy, hierarchical integration, progressive integration, holarchy, superformation, self-organization cycles) and widespread applications based on various, often unrelated theoretical and disciplinary backgrounds. In order to determine its role in the field of knowledge organization, some common misconceptions and major criticisms will be reconsidered in light of a broader multidisciplinary context. In particular, it will be shown how this organizing principle has been fruitfully applied to human-related research areas such as psychology, social sciences, or humanities in terms of integrative levels of knowing.

Date

29. 9.2017 18:49:44

0.027976 = product of:
  0.06994 = sum of:
    0.056498513 = weight(_text_:system in 7241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.056498513 = score(doc=7241,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = 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)
    0.013441487 = product of:
      0.04032446 = sum of:
        0.04032446 = weight(_text_:22 in 7241) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04032446 = score(doc=7241,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = 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)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

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

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

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.

0.024017572 = product of:
  0.06004393 = sum of:
    0.04841807 = weight(_text_:context in 2632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04841807 = score(doc=2632,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.27475408 = fieldWeight in 2632, 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=2632)
    0.011625858 = product of:
      0.034877572 = sum of:
        0.034877572 = weight(_text_:29 in 2632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034877572 = score(doc=2632,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 2632, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2632)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This paper focuses on the need for knowledge organization (KO) tools, such as library classifications, thesauri and subject heading systems, to be fully disclosed and available in the open network environment. The authors look at the place and value of traditional library knowledge organization tools in relation to the technical environment and expectations of the Semantic Web. Future requirements in this context are explored, stressing the need for KO systems to support semantic interoperability. In order to be fully shareable KO tools need to be reframed and reshaped in terms of conceptual and data models. The authors suggest that some useful approaches to this already exist in methodological and technical developments within the fields of ontology modelling and lexicographic and terminological data interchange.

Date

29. 8.2004 9:26:23

0.021808002 = product of:
  0.054520003 = sum of:
    0.03588033 = weight(_text_:index in 2760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03588033 = score(doc=2760,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.1931181 = fieldWeight in 2760, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2760)
    0.018639674 = weight(_text_:system in 2760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018639674 = score(doc=2760,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.13919188 = fieldWeight in 2760, 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=2760)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Special classifications have been somewhat neglected in KO compared to general classifications. The methodology of constructing special classifications is important, however, also for the methodology of constructing general classification schemes. The methodology of constructing special classifications can be regarded as one among about a dozen approaches to domain analysis. The methodology of (special) classification in LIS has been dominated by the rationalistic facet-analytic tradition, which, however, neglects the question of the empirical basis of classification. The empirical basis is much better grasped by, for example, bibliometric methods. Even the combination of rational and empirical methods is insufficient. This presentation will provide evidence for the necessity of historical and pragmatic methods for the methodology of classification and will point to the necessity of analyzing "paradigms". The presentation covers the methods of constructing classifications from Ranganathan to the design of ontologies in computer science and further to the recent "paradigm shift" in classification research. 1. Introduction Classification of a subject field is one among about eleven approaches to analyzing a domain that are specific for information science and in my opinion define the special competencies of information specialists (Hjoerland, 2002a). Classification and knowledge organization are commonly regarded as core qualifications of librarians and information specialists. Seen from this perspective one expects a firm methodological basis for the field. This paper tries to explore the state-of-the-art conceming the methodology of classification. 2. Classification: Science or non-science? As it is part of the curriculum at universities and subject in scientific journals and conferences like ISKO, orte expects classification/knowledge organization to be a scientific or scholarly activity and a scientific field. However, very often when information specialists classify or index documents and when they revise classification system, the methods seem to be rather ad hoc. Research libraries or scientific databases may employ people with adequate subject knowledge. When information scientists construct or evaluate systems, they very often elicit the knowledge from "experts" (Hjorland, 2002b, p. 260). Mostly no specific arguments are provided for the specific decisions in these processes.