Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  • × 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.: "Classic"vs. "freely" faceted classification (2007) 0.01
    0.009195855 = product of:
      0.01839171 = sum of:
        0.01839171 = product of:
          0.03678342 = sum of:
            0.03678342 = weight(_text_:web in 715) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03678342 = score(doc=715,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 715, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=715)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Claudio Gnoli of the University of Pavia in Italy and Chair of ISKO Italy, explored the relative merits of classic 'faceted classification' (FC) and 'freely faceted classification' (FFC). In classic FC, the facets (and their relationships) which might be combined to express a compound subject, are restricted to those prescribed as inherent in the subject area. FC is therefore largely bounded by and restricted to a specific subject area. At the other extreme, free classification (as in the Web or folksonomies) allows the combination of values from multiple, disparate domains where the relationships among the elements are often indeterminate, and the semantics obscure. Claudio described how punched cards were an early example of free classification, and cited the coordination of dogs : postmen : bites as one where the absence of defined relationships made the semantics ambiguous
  3. Gnoli, C.: Categories and facets in integrative levels (2008) 0.01
    0.009195855 = product of:
      0.01839171 = sum of:
        0.01839171 = product of:
          0.03678342 = sum of:
            0.03678342 = weight(_text_:web in 1806) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03678342 = score(doc=1806,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.17002425 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052098576 = queryNorm
                0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 1806, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1806)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Facets and general categories used in bibliographic classification have been based on a disciplinary organization of knowledge. However, facets and categories of phenomena independent from disciplines can be identified similarly. Phenomena can be classified according to a series of integrative levels (layers), which in turn can be grouped into the major strata of form, matter, life, mind, society and culture, agreeing with Nicolai Hartmann's ontology. Unlike a layer, a stratum is not constituted of elements of the lower ones; rather, it represents the formal pattern of the lower ones, like the horse hoof represents the shape of the steppe. Bibliographic categories can now be seen in the light of level theory: some categories are truly general, while others only appear at a given level, being the realization of a general category in the specific context of the level: these are the facets of that level. In the notation of the Integrative Level Classification project, categories and facets are represented by digits, and displayed in a Web interface with the help of colours.
  4. 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.