Search (23 results, page 2 of 2)

  • × theme_ss:"Universale Facettenklassifikationen"
  1. 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.
  2. Dimensions of knowledge : facets for knowledge organization (2017) 0.01
    0.007663213 = product of:
      0.015326426 = sum of:
        0.015326426 = product of:
          0.030652853 = sum of:
            0.030652853 = weight(_text_:web in 4154) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.030652853 = score(doc=4154,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 4154, 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=4154)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The identification and contextual definition of concepts is the core of knowledge organization. The full expression of comprehension is accomplished through the use of an extension device called the facet. A facet is a category of dimensional characteristics that cross the hierarchical array of concepts to provide extension, or breadth, to the contexts in which they are discovered or expressed in knowledge organization systems. The use of the facet in knowledge organization has a rich history arising in the mid-nineteenth century. As it has matured through more than a century of application, the notion of the facet in knowledge organization has taken on a variety of meanings, from that of simple categories used in web search engines to the more sophisticated idea of intersecting dimensions of knowledge. This book describes the state of the art of the understanding of facets in knowledge organization today.
  3. Tennis, J.T.: Never facets alone : the evolving thought and persistent problems in Ranganathan's theories of classification (2017) 0.01
    0.007663213 = product of:
      0.015326426 = sum of:
        0.015326426 = product of:
          0.030652853 = sum of:
            0.030652853 = weight(_text_:web in 5800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.030652853 = score(doc=5800,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 5800, 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=5800)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Shiyali Ramamrita Ranganathan's theory of classification spans a number of works over a number of decades. And while he was devoted to solving many problems in the practice of librarianship, and is known as the father of library science in India (Garfield, 1984), his work in classification revolves around one central concern. His classification research addressed the problems that arose from introducing new ideas into a scheme for classification, while maintaining a meaningful hierarchical and systematically arranged order of classes. This is because hierarchical and systematically arranged classes are the defining characteristic of useful classification. To lose this order is to through the addition of new classes is to introduce confusion, if not chaos, and to move toward a useless classification - or at least one that requires complete revision. In the following chapter, I outline the stages, and the elements of those stages, in Ranganathan's thought on classification from 1926-1972, as well as posthumous work that continues his agenda. And while facets figure prominently in all of these stages; but for Ranganathan to achieve his goal, he must continually add to this central feature of his theory of classification. I will close this chapter with an outline of persistent problems that represent research fronts for the field. Chief among these are what to do about scheme change and the open question about the rigor of information modeling in light of semantic web developments.