Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.05964709 = product of:
  0.23858836 = sum of:
    0.23858836 = weight(_text_:james in 4533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.23858836 = score(doc=4533,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.4933813 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.2947483 = idf(docFreq=81, maxDocs=44421)
          0.067635134 = queryNorm
        0.48357806 = fieldWeight in 4533, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.2947483 = idf(docFreq=81, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4533)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Ontology, in its philosophical meaning, is the discipline investigating the structure of reality. Its findings can be relevant to knowledge organization, and models of knowledge can, in turn, offer relevant ontological suggestions. Several philosophers in time have pointed out that reality is structured into a series of integrative levels, like the physical, the biological, the mental, and the cultural, and that each level plays as a base for the emergence of more complex levels. More detailed theories of levels have been developed by Nicolai Hartmann and James K. Feibleman, and these have been considered as a source for structuring principles in bibliographic classification by both the Classification Research Group (CRG) and Ingetraut Dahlberg. CRG's analysis of levels and of their possible application to a new general classification scheme based an phenomena instead of disciplines, as it was formulated by Derek Austin in 1969, is examined in detail. Both benefits and open problems in applying integrative levels to bibliographic classification are pointed out.

0.034425784 = product of:
  0.13770314 = sum of:
    0.13770314 = weight(_text_:headings in 4750) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13770314 = score(doc=4750,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.3281928 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.067635134 = queryNorm
        0.41958 = fieldWeight in 4750, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4750)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

"Subject headings Many Italian libraries create subject headings for their catalogues, using as a reference guide the "Soggettario per i catalogui delle biblioteche italiane." This is basically a list of subject terms created by the Biblioteca nazionale centrale di Firenze (BNCF), first published in 1956 and later updated with various lists of new subject headings. Though the Soggettario is still the main available reference, librarians are generally aware that it is outdated in both vocabulary and structure, especially as it does not provide explicit principles and rules to create and combine subject headings. A research group, called the Gruppo di ricerca sull'indicizzazione per soggetto (GRIS), was founded in 1990. It was devoted to improving the principles and consistency of subject indexing. Its members have performed in depth investigations of the structure of subject headings, starting with the principles of facet analysis used in PRECIS and including original developments. Results of their work are coded into the Guida all'indicizzazione per soggetto, published in 1996 and available also online <http:// wwwaib.it/aib/commiss/gris/gulda.htm>. The GRIS guide does not concern vocabulary, but morphological and syntactical rules for choosing and combining terms according to a sound citation order, based an a "role scheme." Unfortunately, GRIS principles have been applied only in a small number of libraries, mainly in Tuscany, rohere most GRIS members are located. A new project is now attempting to blend the traditional authority of the Soggettario with the more advanced principles of GRIS. A working group has been formed with people from BNCF, GRIS, and others, to study the feasibility of a renewal of the Soggettario. The group produced a report book in 2002, specifying the desirable features of the new system, and is at present searching for grants to implement it.

0.021993825 = product of:
  0.0879753 = sum of:
    0.0879753 = weight(_text_:headings in 1323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0879753 = score(doc=1323,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3281928 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.067635134 = queryNorm
        0.26805982 = fieldWeight in 1323, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1323)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.