Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Szostak, R."
  • × author_ss:"Gnoli, C."
  1. Szostak, R.; Gnoli, C.; López-Huertas, M.: Interdisciplinary knowledge organization 0.01
    0.008669936 = product of:
      0.017339872 = sum of:
        0.017339872 = product of:
          0.034679744 = sum of:
            0.034679744 = weight(_text_:web in 3804) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.034679744 = score(doc=3804,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.2039694 = fieldWeight in 3804, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3804)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    -Existing classification systems serve interdisciplinary research and teaching poorly. -A novel approach to classification, grounded in the phenomena studied rather than disciplines, would serve interdisciplinary scholarship much better. It would also have advantages for disciplinary scholarship. The productivity of scholarship would thus be increased. -This novel approach is entirely feasible. Various concerns that might be raised can each be addressed. The broad outlines of what a new classification would look like are developed. -This new approach might serve as a complement to or a substitute for existing classification systems. -Domain analysis can and should be employed in the pursuit of a general classification. This will be particularly important with respect to interdisciplinary domains. -Though the impetus for this novel approach comes from interdisciplinarity, it is also better suited to the needs of the Semantic Web, and a digital environment more generally. Though the primary focus of the book is on classification systems, most chapters also address how the analysis could be extended to thesauri and ontologies. The possibility of a universal thesaurus is explored. The classification proposed has many of the advantages sought in ontologies for the Semantic Web. The book is therefore of interest to scholars working in these areas as well.
  2. Gnoli, C.; Pullman, T.; Cousson, P.; Merli, G.; Szostak, R.: Representing the structural elements of a freely faceted classification (2011) 0.01
    0.007663213 = product of:
      0.015326426 = sum of:
        0.015326426 = product of:
          0.030652853 = sum of:
            0.030652853 = weight(_text_:web in 4825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.030652853 = score(doc=4825,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 4825, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4825)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Freely faceted classifications allow for free combination of concepts across all knowledge domains, and for sorting of the resulting compound classmarks. Starting from work by the Classification Research Group, the Integrative Levels Classification (ILC) project has produced a first edition of a general freely faceted scheme. The system is managed as a MySQL database, and can be browsed through a Web interface. The ILC database structure provides a case for identifying and representing the structural elements of any freely faceted classification. These belong to both the notational and the verbal planes. Notational elements include: arrays, chains, deictics, facets, foci, place of definition of foci, examples of combinations, subclasses of a faceted class, groupings, related classes; verbal elements include: main caption, synonyms, descriptions, included terms, related terms, notes. Encoding of some of these elements in an international mark-up format like SKOS can be problematic, especially as this does not provide for faceted structures, although approximate SKOS equivalents are identified for most of them.