Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Klassifikationstheorie: Elemente / Struktur"
  • × author_ss:"Gnoli, C."
  1. Gnoli, C.; Mei, H.: Freely faceted classification for Web-based information retrieval (2006) 0.01
    0.013004904 = product of:
      0.026009807 = sum of:
        0.026009807 = product of:
          0.052019615 = sum of:
            0.052019615 = weight(_text_:web in 534) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.052019615 = score(doc=534,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 534, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=534)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    In free classification, each concept is expressed by a constant notation, and classmarks are formed by free combinations of them, allowing the retrieval of records from a database by searching any of the component concepts. A refinement of free classification is freely faceted classification, where notation can include facets, expressing the kind of relations held between the concepts. The Integrative Level Classification project aims at testing free and freely faceted classification by applying them to small bibliographical samples in various domains. A sample, called the Dandelion Bibliography of Facet Analysis, is described here. Experience was gained using this system to classify 300 specialized papers dealing with facet analysis itself recorded on a MySQL database and building a Web interface exploiting freely faceted notation. The interface is written in PHP and uses string functions to process the queries and to yield relevant results selected and ordered according to the principles of integrative levels.
  2. Gnoli, C.: Classifying phenomena : part 4: themes and rhemes (2018) 0.01
    0.010587957 = product of:
      0.021175914 = sum of:
        0.021175914 = product of:
          0.042351827 = sum of:
            0.042351827 = weight(_text_:22 in 4152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.042351827 = score(doc=4152,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.18244034 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4152, 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=4152)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Date
    17. 2.2018 18:22:25
  3. Gnoli, C.: ¬The meaning of facets in non-disciplinary classifications (2006) 0.01
    0.007663213 = product of:
      0.015326426 = sum of:
        0.015326426 = product of:
          0.030652853 = sum of:
            0.030652853 = weight(_text_:web in 2291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.030652853 = score(doc=2291,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 2291, 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=2291)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Disciplines are felt by many to be a constraint in classification, though they are a structuring principle of most bibliographic classification schemes. A non-disciplinary approach has been explored by the Classification Research Group, and research in this direction has been resumed recently by the Integrative Level Classification project. This paper focuses on the role and the definition of facets in non-disciplinary schemes. A generalized definition of facets is suggested with reference to predicate logic, allowing for having facets of phenomena as well as facets of disciplines. The general categories under which facets are often subsumed can be related ontologically to the evolutionary sequence of integrative levels. As a facet can be semantically connected with phenomena from any other part of a general scheme, its values can belong to three types, here called extra-defined foci (either special or general), and context-defined foci. Non-disciplinary freely faceted classification is being tested by applying it to little bibliographic samples stored in a MySQL database, and developing Web search interfaces to demonstrate possible uses of the described techniques.
  4. Gnoli, C.: Metadata about what? : distinguishing between ontic, epistemic, and documental dimensions in knowledge organization (2012) 0.01
    0.007663213 = product of:
      0.015326426 = sum of:
        0.015326426 = product of:
          0.030652853 = sum of:
            0.030652853 = weight(_text_:web in 323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.030652853 = score(doc=323,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 323, 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=323)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The spread of many new media and formats is changing the scenario faced by knowledge organizers: as printed monographs are not the only standard form of knowledge carrier anymore, the traditional kind of knowledge organization (KO) systems based on academic disciplines is put into question. A sounder foundation can be provided by an analysis of the different dimensions concurring to form the content of any knowledge item-what Brian Vickery described as the steps "from the world to the classifier." The ultimate referents of documents are the phenomena of the real world, that can be ordered by ontology, the study of what exists. Phenomena coexist in subjects with the perspectives by which they are considered, pertaining to epistemology, and with the formal features of knowledge carriers, adding a further, pragmatic layer. All these dimensions can be accounted for in metadata, but are often done so in mixed ways, making indexes less rigorous and interoperable. For example, while facet analysis was originally developed for subject indexing, many "faceted" interfaces today mix subject facets with form facets, and schemes presented as "ontologies" for the "semantic Web" also code for non-semantic information. In bibliographic classifications, phenomena are often confused with the disciplines dealing with them, the latter being assumed to be the most useful starting point, for users will have either one or another perspective. A general citation order of dimensions- phenomena, perspective, carrier-is recommended, helping to concentrate most relevant information at the beginning of headings.