Search (109 results, page 2 of 6)

  • × theme_ss:"Klassifikationstheorie: Elemente / Struktur"
  1. Howarth, L.C.; Jansen, E.H.: Towards a typology of warrant for 21st century knowledge organization systems (2014) 0.02 
    0.020424798 = product of:
  0.051061995 = sum of:
    0.03954072 = weight(_text_:system in 1425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03954072 = score(doc=1425,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.29527056 = fieldWeight in 1425, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1425)
    0.011521274 = product of:
      0.03456382 = sum of:
        0.03456382 = weight(_text_:22 in 1425) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03456382 = score(doc=1425,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1425, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1425)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    This paper returns to Beghtol's (1986) insightful typology of warrant to consider an empirical example of a traditional top-down hierarchical classification system as it continues to evolve in the early 21st century. Our examination considers there may be multiple warrants identified among the processes of design and the relationships to users of the National Occupational Classification (NOC), the standard occupational classification system published in Canada. We argue that this shift in semantic warrant signals a transition for traditional knowledge organization systems, and that warrant continues to be a relevant analytical concept and organizing principle, both within and beyond the domain of bibliographic control.
    Source
    Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik
  2. McIlwaine, I.C.: Where have all the flowers gone? : An investigation into the fate of some special classification schemes (2003) 0.02 
    0.020367354 = product of:
  0.050918385 = sum of:
    0.032278713 = weight(_text_:context in 2764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032278713 = score(doc=2764,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.18316938 = fieldWeight in 2764, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2764)
    0.018639674 = weight(_text_:system in 2764) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018639674 = score(doc=2764,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.13919188 = fieldWeight in 2764, 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=2764)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    Prior to the OPAC many institutions devised classifications to suit their special needs. Others expanded or altered general schemes to accommodate specific approaches. A driving force in the creation of these classifications was the Classification Research Group, celebrating its golden jubilee in 2002, whose work created a framework and body of principles that remain valid for the retrieval needs of today. The paper highlights some of these special schemes and highlights the fundamental principles which remain valid. 1. Introduction The distinction between a general and a special classification scheme is made frequently in the textbooks, but is one that it is sometimes difficult to draw. The Library of Congress classification could be described as the special classification par excellence. Normally, however, a special classification is taken to be one that is restricted to a specific subject, and quite often used in one specific context only, either a library or a bibliographic listing or for a specific purpose such as a search engine and it is in this sense that I propose to examine some of these schemes. Today, there is a widespread preference for searching an words as a supplement to the use of a standard system, usually the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC). This is enhanced by the ability to search documents full-text in a computerized environment, a situation that did not exist 20 or 30 years ago. Today's situation is a great improvement in many ways, but it does depend upon the words used by the author and the searcher corresponding, and often presupposes the use of English. In libraries, the use of co-operative services and precatalogued records already provided with classification data has also spelt the demise of the special scheme. In many instances, the survival of a special classification depends upon its creaior and, with the passage of time, this becomes inevitably more precarious.
  3. Gnoli, C.: Progress in synthetic classification : towards unique definition of concepts (2007) 0.02 
    0.020014644 = product of:
  0.05003661 = sum of:
    0.040348392 = weight(_text_:context in 2527) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040348392 = score(doc=2527,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.22896172 = fieldWeight in 2527, 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=2527)
    0.009688215 = product of:
      0.029064644 = sum of:
        0.029064644 = weight(_text_:29 in 2527) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029064644 = score(doc=2527,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 2527, 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=2527)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    The evolution of bibliographic classification schemes, from the end of the 19th century to our time, shows a trend of increasing possibilities to combine concepts in a classmark. While the early schemes, like DDC and LCC, were largely enumerative, more and more synthetic devices have appeared with common auxiliaries, facets, and phase relationships. The last editions of UDC and the UDC-derived FATKS project follow this evolution, by introducing more specific phase relationships and more common auxiliaries, like those for general properties and processes. This agrees with the Farradane's principle that each concept should have a place of unique definition, instead of being re-notated in each context where it occurs. This evolution appears to be unfinished, as even in most synthetic schemes many concepts have a different notation according to the disciplinary main classes where they occur. To overcome this limitation, main classes should be defined in terms of phenomena rather than disciplines: the Integrative Level Classification (ILC) research project is currently exploring this possibility. Examples with UDC, FATKS, and ILC notations are discussed.
    Source
    Extensions and corrections to the UDC. 29(2007), S.167-182
  4. Loehrlein, A.J.; Lemieux, V.L.; Bennett, M.: ¬The classification of financial products (2014) 0.02 
    0.017760385 = product of:
  0.04440096 = sum of:
    0.027959513 = weight(_text_:system in 1196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027959513 = score(doc=1196,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 1196, 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=1196)
    0.016441446 = product of:
      0.049324337 = sum of:
        0.049324337 = weight(_text_:29 in 1196) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049324337 = score(doc=1196,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.3297832 = fieldWeight in 1196, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1196)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    In the wake of the global financial crisis, the U.S. Dodd- Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank) was enacted to provide increased transparency in financial markets. In response to Dodd-Frank, a series of rules relating to swaps record keeping have been issued, and one such rule calls for the creation of a financial products classification system. The manner in which financial products are classified will have a profound effect on data integration and analysis in the financial industry. This article considers various approaches that can be taken when classifying financial products and recommends the use of facet analysis. The article argues that this type of analysis is flexible enough to accommodate multiple viewpoints and rigorous enough to facilitate inferences that are based on the hierarchical structure. Various use cases are examined that pertain to the organization of financial products. The use cases confirm the practical utility of taxonomies that are designed according to faceted principles.
    Date
    29. 1.2014 16:29:52
  5. Molholt, P.: Qualities of classification schemes for the Information Superhighway (1995) 0.02 
    0.017020667 = product of:
  0.042551666 = sum of:
    0.032950602 = weight(_text_:system in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032950602 = score(doc=5562,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.24605882 = fieldWeight in 5562, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5562)
    0.009601062 = product of:
      0.028803186 = sum of:
        0.028803186 = weight(_text_:22 in 5562) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028803186 = score(doc=5562,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5562, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5562)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)
    Abstract
    For my segment of this program I'd like to focus on some basic qualities of classification schemes. These qualities are critical to our ability to truly organize knowledge for access. As I see it, there are at least five qualities of note. The first one of these properties that I want to talk about is "authoritative." By this I mean standardized, but I mean more than standardized with a built in consensus-building process. A classification scheme constructed by a collaborative, consensus-building process carries the approval, and the authority, of the discipline groups that contribute to it and that it affects... The next property of classification systems is "expandable," living, responsive, with a clear locus of responsibility for its continuous upkeep. The worst thing you can do with a thesaurus, or a classification scheme, is to finish it. You can't ever finish it because it reflects ongoing intellectual activity... The third property is "intuitive." That is, the system has to be approachable, it has to be transparent, or at least capable of being transparent. It has to have an underlying logic that supports the classification scheme but doesn't dominate it... The fourth property is "organized and logical." I advocate very strongly, and agree with Lois Chan, that classification must be based on a rule-based structure, on somebody's world-view of the syndetic structure... The fifth property is "universal" by which I mean the classification scheme needs be useable by any specific system or application, and be available as a language for multiple purposes.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 21(1995) no.2, S.19-22
  6. Garcia Marco, F.J.: Contexto y determinantes funcionales de la clasificacion documental (1996) 0.02 
    0.01597715 = product of:
  0.07988574 = sum of:
    0.07988574 = weight(_text_:context in 380) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07988574 = score(doc=380,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.4533211 = fieldWeight in 380, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=380)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Considers classification in the context of the information retrieval chain, a communication process. Defines classification as an heuristic methodology, which is being improved through scientific methodology. It is also an indexing process, setting each document in a systematic order, in a predictable place and therefore able to be efficiently retrieved. Classification appears to be determined by 4 factors: the structure of the world of documents, a function of the world of knowledge; the classification tools that allow us to codify them; the way in which people create and use classifications; and the features of the information unit
    Footnote
    Übers. des Titels: Functional context and factors of the classification process
  7. Buchanan, B.: Theory of library classification (1979) 0.01 
    0.014352133 = product of:
  0.07176066 = sum of:
    0.07176066 = weight(_text_:index in 641) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07176066 = score(doc=641,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.3862362 = fieldWeight in 641, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=641)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Content
    Inhalt: Classification: definition and uses - The relationships between classes - Enumerative and faceted schemes - Decisions - The construction of a faceted scheme: I - The construction of a faceted scheme: II - Notation: I - Notation: II - Notation: III - The alphabetical subject index - General classification schemes - Objections to systematic order - Automatic classification
  8. Maltby, A.; Marcella, R.: Organizing knowledge : the need for system and unity (2000) 0.01 
    0.013047772 = product of:
  0.06523886 = sum of:
    0.06523886 = weight(_text_:system in 181) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06523886 = score(doc=181,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.4871716 = fieldWeight in 181, 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=181)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
  9. Mai, J.-E.: Classification in context : Relativity, reality, and representation (2004) 0.01 
    0.0129114855 = product of:
  0.064557426 = sum of:
    0.064557426 = weight(_text_:context in 3017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064557426 = score(doc=3017,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.36633876 = fieldWeight in 3017, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3017)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
  10. Kochar, R.S.: Library classification systems (1998) 0.01 
    0.012558117 = product of:
  0.06279058 = sum of:
    0.06279058 = weight(_text_:index in 931) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06279058 = score(doc=931,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.33795667 = fieldWeight in 931, 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=931)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Content
    Contents: Preface. 1. Classification systems. 2. Automatic classification. 3. Knowledge classification. 4. Reflections on library classification. 5. General classification schemes. 6. Hierarchical classification. 7. Faceted classification. B. Present methods and future directions. Index.
  11. Belayche, C.: ¬A propos de la classification de Dewey (1997) 0.01 
    0.012345138 = product of:
  0.061725687 = sum of:
    0.061725687 = product of:
      0.09258853 = sum of:
        0.04650343 = weight(_text_:29 in 1171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04650343 = score(doc=1171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 1171, 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=1171)
        0.046085097 = weight(_text_:22 in 1171) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046085097 = score(doc=1171,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1171, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1171)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Date
    29. 1.1996 16:50:24
    Source
    Bulletin d'informations de l'Association des Bibliothecaires Francais. 1997, no.175, S.22-23
  12. Zackland, M.; Fontaine, D.: Systematic building of conceptual classification systems with C-KAT (1996) 0.01 
    0.01129755 = product of:
  0.05648775 = sum of:
    0.05648775 = weight(_text_:context in 5145) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05648775 = score(doc=5145,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.32054642 = fieldWeight in 5145, 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=5145)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    C-KAT is a method and a tool which supports the design of feature oriented classification systems for knowlegde based systems. It uses a specialized Heuristic Classification conceptual model named 'classification by structural shift' which sees the classification process as the matching of different classifications of the same set of objects or situations organized around different structural principles. To manage the complexity induced by the cross-product, C-KAT supports the use of a leastcommittment strategy which applies in a context of constraint-directed reasoning. Presents this method using an example from the field of industrial fire insurance
  13. Fripp, D.: Using linked data to classify web documents (2010) 0.01 
    0.01129755 = product of:
  0.05648775 = sum of:
    0.05648775 = weight(_text_:context in 4172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05648775 = score(doc=4172,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.32054642 = fieldWeight in 4172, 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=4172)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to find a relationship between traditional faceted classification schemes and semantic web document annotators, particularly in the linked data environment. Design/methodology/approach - A consideration of the conceptual ideas behind faceted classification and linked data architecture is made. Analysis of selected web documents is performed using Calais' Semantic Proxy to support the considerations. Findings - Technical language aside, the principles of both approaches are very similar. Modern classification techniques have the potential to automatically generate metadata to drive more precise information recall by including a semantic layer. Originality/value - Linked data have not been explicitly considered in this context before in the published literature.
  14. Hjoerland, B.: Theories of knowledge organization - theories of knowledge (2017) 0.01 
    0.010801995 = product of:
  0.054009974 = sum of:
    0.054009974 = product of:
      0.08101496 = sum of:
        0.0406905 = weight(_text_:29 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0406905 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14956595 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 3494, 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=3494)
        0.04032446 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04032446 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1488917 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04251826 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Pages
    S.22-36
    Source
    Theorie, Semantik und Organisation von Wissen: Proceedings der 13. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und dem 13. Internationalen Symposium der Informationswissenschaft der Higher Education Association for Information Science (HI) Potsdam (19.-20.03.2013): 'Theory, Information and Organization of Knowledge' / Proceedings der 14. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und Natural Language & Information Systems (NLDB) Passau (16.06.2015): 'Lexical Resources for Knowledge Organization' / Proceedings des Workshops der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) auf der SEMANTICS Leipzig (1.09.2014): 'Knowledge Organization and Semantic Web' / Proceedings des Workshops der Polnischen und Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) Cottbus (29.-30.09.2011): 'Economics of Knowledge Production and Organization'. Hrsg. von W. Babik, H.P. Ohly u. K. Weber
  15. Farradane, J.E.L.: ¬A scientific theory of classification and indexing and its practical applications (1950) 0.01 
    0.0107641 = product of:
  0.0538205 = sum of:
    0.0538205 = weight(_text_:index in 1654) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0538205 = score(doc=1654,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18579477 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.369764 = idf(docFreq=1520, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.28967714 = fieldWeight in 1654, 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=1654)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    A classification is a theory of the structure of knowledge. From a discussion of the nature of truth, it is held that scientific knowledge is the only knowledge which can be regarded as true. The method of induction from empirical data is therefore applied to the construction of a classification. Items of knowledge are divided into uniquely definable terms, called isolates, and the relations between them, called operators. It is shown that only four basic operators exist, expressing appurtenance, equivalence, reaction and causation; using symbols for these operators, all subjects can be analysed in a linear form called an analet. With the addition of the permissible permutations of such analets, formed according to simple rules, alphabetical arrangement of the first terms provide a complete, logical subject index. Examples are given, and possible difficulties are considered. A classification can then be constructed by selection of deductive relations, arranged in hierarchical form. The nature of possible classifications is discussed. It is claimed that such an inductively constructed classification is the only true representation of the structure of knowledge, and that these principles provide a simple technique for accurately and fully indexing and classifying any given set of data, with complete flexibility
  16. Ereshefsky, M.: ¬The poverty of the Linnaean hierarchy : a philosophical study of biological taxonomy (2007) 0.01 
    0.010544192 = product of:
  0.05272096 = sum of:
    0.05272096 = weight(_text_:system in 2493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05272096 = score(doc=2493,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.3936941 = fieldWeight in 2493, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2493)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    The question of whether biologists should continue to use the Linnaean hierarchy has been a hotly debated issue. Ereshefsky argues that biologists should abandon the Linnaean system and adopt an alternative that is in line with evolutionary theory. He then makes specific recommendations for a post-Linnaean method of classification.
    Footnote
    Rez. in: KO 35(2008) no.4, S.255-259 (B. Hjoerland): "This book was published in 2000 simultaneously in hardback and as an electronic resource, and, in 2007, as a paperback. The author is a professor of philosophy at the University of Calgary, Canada. He has an impressive list of contributions, mostly addressing issues in biological taxonomy such as units of evolution, natural kinds and the species concept. The book is a scholarly criticism of the famous classification system developed by the Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778). This system consists of both a set of rules for the naming of living organisms (biological nomenclature) and principles of classification. Linné's system has been used and adapted by biologists over a period of almost 250 years. Under the current system of codes, it is now applied to more than two million species of organisms. Inherent in the Linnaean system is the indication of hierarchic relationships. The Linnaean system has been justified primarily on the basis of stability. Although it has been criticized and alternatives have been suggested, it still has its advocates (e.g., Schuh, 2003). One of the alternatives being developed is The International Code of Phylogenetic Nomenclature, known as the PhyloCode for short, a system that radically alters the current nomenclatural rules. The new proposals have provoked hot debate on nomenclatural issues in biology. . . ."
  17. Olson, H.A.: Wind and rain and dark of night : classification in scientific discourse communities (2008) 0.01 
    0.009683615 = product of:
  0.04841807 = sum of:
    0.04841807 = weight(_text_:context in 2270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04841807 = score(doc=2270,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17622331 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.14465 = idf(docFreq=1904, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.27475408 = fieldWeight in 2270, 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=2270)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Content
    Classifications of natural phenomena demonstrate the applicability of discourse analysis in finding the importance of concepts such as warrant for categorization and classification. Temperature scales provide a body of official literature for close consideration. Official documents of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) reveal the reasoning behind choices affecting these standards. A more cursory scrutiny of the Saffir-Simpson Scale through scholarly publications and documentation from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (KIST) indicates the potential of this form of analysis. The same holds true for an examination of the definition of what is a planet as determined by the International Astronomical Union. As Sayers, Richardson, and Bliss have indicated, there seem to be principles and a reliance on context that bridge the differences between natural and artificial, scientific and bibliographic classifications.
  18. Oeser, E.: ¬The two systems of knowledge organization : on the characteristics and foundations of a universal background system (1982) 0.01 
    0.009319837 = product of:
  0.046599183 = sum of:
    0.046599183 = weight(_text_:system in 50) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.046599183 = score(doc=50,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.3479797 = fieldWeight in 50, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=50)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
  19. Kleineberg, M.: Klassifikation (2023) 0.01 
    0.0092261685 = product of:
  0.04613084 = sum of:
    0.04613084 = weight(_text_:system in 783) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04613084 = score(doc=783,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.34448233 = fieldWeight in 783, 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=783)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    Dieser Beitrag nimmt eine informationswissenschaftliche Perspektive ein und betrachtet das Phänomen der Klassifikation als Methode und System der Wissensorganisation. Ein Klassifikationssystem wird dabei als Wissensorganisationssystem (engl. knowledge organization system) verstanden, das vor allem im Bereich der Information und Dokumentation zum Einsatz kommt, um dokumentarische Bezugseinheiten (DBE) mit einem kontrollierten Vokabular zu beschreiben (s. Kapitel B 1 Einführung Wissensorganisation). Als eine solche Dokumentationssprache zeichnet sich ein Klassifikationssystem typischerweise durch seine systematische Ordnung aus und dient der inhaltlichen Groberschließung, eignet sich aber auch als Aufstellungssystematik und Hilfsmittel bei der Recherche wie etwa als systematischer Sucheinstieg oder thematischer Filter für Treffermengen. Beim Information Retrieval liegt die Stärke der klassifikatorischen Erschließung durch das hohe Abstraktionsniveau in Überblicks- und Vollständigkeitsrecherchen.
  20. Scerri, E.R.: ¬The periodic table : its story and its significance (2007) 0.01 
    0.008387853 = product of:
  0.041939266 = sum of:
    0.041939266 = weight(_text_:system in 2492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041939266 = score(doc=2492,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.13391352 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04251826 = queryNorm
        0.31318173 = fieldWeight in 2492, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2492)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)
    Abstract
    The periodic table is one of the most potent icons in science. It lies at the core of chemistry and embodies the most fundamental principles of the field. The one definitive text on the development of the periodic table by van Spronsen (1969), has been out of print for a considerable time. The present book provides a successor to van Spronsen, but goes further in giving an evaluation of the extent to which modern physics has, or has not, explained the periodic system. The book is written in a lively style to appeal to experts and interested lay-persons alike. The Periodic Table begins with an overview of the importance of the periodic table and of the elements and it examines the manner in which the term 'element' has been interpreted by chemists and philosophers. The book then turns to a systematic account of the early developments that led to the classification of the elements including the work of Lavoisier, Boyle and Dalton and Cannizzaro. The precursors to the periodic system, like Dobereiner and Gmelin, are discussed. In chapter 3 the discovery of the periodic system by six independent scientists is examined in detail. Two chapters are devoted to the discoveries of Mendeleev, the leading discoverer, including his predictions of new elements and his accommodation of already existing elements. Chapters 6 and 7 consider the impact of physics including the discoveries of radioactivity and isotopy and successive theories of the electron including Bohr's quantum theoretical approach. Chapter 8 discusses the response to the new physical theories by chemists such as Lewis and Bury who were able to draw on detailed chemical knowledge to correct some of the early electronic configurations published by Bohr and others. Chapter 9 provides a critical analysis of the extent to which modern quantum mechanics is, or is not, able to explain the periodic system from first principles. Finally, chapter 10 considers the way that the elements evolved following the Big Bang and in the interior of stars. The book closes with an examination of further chemical aspects including lesser known trends within the periodic system such as the knight's move relationship and secondary periodicity, as well at attempts to explain such trends.
    Footnote
    Rez. in: KO 35(2008) no.4, S.251-254 (B. Hjoerland): "The book is about the classification of chemical elements known as the periodical system. It is described as "one of the most potent icons in science [.] One sees periodic tables everywhere: in industrial labs, workshops, academic labs, and of course, lecture halls" (p. xiii). Among all taxonomies in all domains, there is probably none more respected and more useful than this one. As Scerri states (p. 25): The periodic table ranks as one of the most fruitful and unifying ideas in the whole of modern science, comparable perhaps with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. Unlike such theories as Newtonian mechanics, the periodic table has not been falsified by developments in modern physics but has evolved while remaining essentially unchanged. After evolving for nearly 150 years through the work of numerous individuals, the periodic table remains at the heart of chemistry. This is mainly because it is of immense practical benefit for making predictions about all manner of chemical and physical properties of the elements and possibilities for bond formation. The periodic system provides the basic criteria for organizing knowledge about all the material stuff in the entire universe. It is thus a model that anybody with interests in knowledge organization (KO) should know. Knowledge about the history, philosophy and status of the periodic system also provides important insight for knowledge organization in general. . . . Scerri's book demonstrates how one of the most important classification systems has evolved and what kinds of conceptualizations and classification criteria are at work in it. It is probably the best book about the best classification system ever constructed. It should belong to any library supporting teaching and research in knowledge organization."

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 99
  • f 3
  • i 3
  • d 2
  • chi 1
  • sp 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 93
  • m 13
  • el 4
  • s 4
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications