Search (30 results, page 1 of 2)

0.044515748 = product of:
  0.17806299 = sum of:
    0.17806299 = weight(_text_:heading in 659) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17806299 = score(doc=659,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.38061732 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06292258 = queryNorm
        0.4678268 = fieldWeight in 659, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=659)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This proposed new classification scheme is based on two main elements: hierarchism and binary theory. Hence, it is called Universal Binary Classification (UBC). Some advantages of this classification are highlighted including are subject heading development, construction of a thesaurus and all terms with meaningful features arranged in tabular form that can help researchers, through a semantic process, to find what they need. This classification scheme is fully consistent with the classification of knowledge. The classification of knowledge is also based on hierarchism and binary principle. Finally, a survey on randomly selected books in McLennan Library of McGill University is presented to compare the codes of this new classification with the currently employed Library of Congress Classification (LCC) numbers in the discipline of Library and Information Sciences.

0.038156357 = product of:
  0.15262543 = sum of:
    0.15262543 = weight(_text_:heading in 3632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.15262543 = score(doc=3632,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.38061732 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06292258 = queryNorm
        0.40099442 = fieldWeight in 3632, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3632)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper focuses on the need for knowledge organization (KO) tools, such as library classifications, thesauri and subject heading systems, to be fully disclosed and available in the open network environment. The authors look at the place and value of traditional library knowledge organization tools in relation to the technical environment and expectations of the Semantic Web. Future requirements in this context are explored, stressing the need for KO systems to support semantic interoperability. In order to be fully shareable KO tools need to be reframed and reshaped in terms of conceptual and data models. The authors suggest that some useful approaches to this already exist in methodological and technical developments within the fields of ontology modelling and lexicographic and terminological data interchange.

0.031796962 = product of:
  0.12718785 = sum of:
    0.12718785 = weight(_text_:heading in 3874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12718785 = score(doc=3874,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.38061732 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06292258 = queryNorm
        0.334162 = fieldWeight in 3874, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3874)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The aim of this article is to estimate the impact of faceted classification and the faceted analytical method on the development of various information retrieval tools over the latter part of the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Design/methodology/approach - The article presents an examination of various subject access tools intended for retrieval of both print and digital materials to determine whether they exhibit features of faceted systems. Some attention is paid to use of the faceted approach as a means of structuring information on commercial web sites. The secondary and research literature is also surveyed for commentary on and evaluation of facet analysis as a basis for the building of vocabulary and conceptual tools. Findings - The study finds that faceted systems are now very common, with a major increase in their use over the last 15 years. Most LIS subject indexing tools (classifications, subject heading lists and thesauri) now demonstrate features of facet analysis to a greater or lesser degree. A faceted approach is frequently taken to the presentation of product information on commercial web sites, and there is an independent strand of theory and documentation related to this application. There is some significant research on semi-automatic indexing and retrieval (query expansion and query formulation) using facet analytical techniques. Originality/value - This article provides an overview of an important conceptual approach to information retrieval, and compares different understandings and applications of this methodology.

0.02543757 = product of:
  0.10175028 = sum of:
    0.10175028 = weight(_text_:heading in 3763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10175028 = score(doc=3763,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.38061732 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06292258 = queryNorm
        0.2673296 = fieldWeight in 3763, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3763)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The different points of views an knowledge representation and organization from various research communities reflect underlying philosophies and paradigms in these communities. This paper reviews differences and relations in knowledge representation and organization and generalizes four paradigms-integrative and disintegrative pragmatism and integrative and disintegrative epistemologism. Examples such as classification, XML schemas, and ontologies are compared based an how they specify concepts, build data models, and encode knowledge organization structures. 1. Introduction Knowledge representation (KR) is a term that several research communities use to refer to somewhat different aspects of the same research area. The artificial intelligence (AI) community considers KR as simply "something to do with writing down, in some language or communications medium, descriptions or pictures that correspond in some salient way to the world or a state of the world" (Duce & Ringland, 1988, p. 3). It emphasizes the ways in which knowledge can be encoded in a computer program (Bench-Capon, 1990). For the library and information science (LIS) community, KR is literally the synonym of knowledge organization, i.e., KR is referred to as the process of organizing knowledge into classifications, thesauri, or subject heading lists. KR has another meaning in LIS: it "encompasses every type and method of indexing, abstracting, cataloguing, classification, records management, bibliography and the creation of textual or bibliographic databases for information retrieval" (Anderson, 1996, p. 336). Adding the social dimension to knowledge organization, Hjoerland (1997) states that knowledge is a part of human activities and tied to the division of labor in society, which should be the primary organization of knowledge. Knowledge organization in LIS is secondary or derived, because knowledge is organized in learned institutions and publications. These different points of views an KR suggest that an essential difference in the understanding of KR between both AI and LIS lies in the source of representationwhether KR targets human activities or derivatives (knowledge produced) from human activities. This difference also decides their difference in purpose-in AI KR is mainly computer-application oriented or pragmatic and the result of representation is used to support decisions an human activities, while in LIS KR is conceptually oriented or abstract and the result of representation is used for access to derivatives from human activities.

0.019078178 = product of:
  0.07631271 = sum of:
    0.07631271 = weight(_text_:heading in 4651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07631271 = score(doc=4651,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.38061732 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06292258 = queryNorm
        0.20049721 = fieldWeight in 4651, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=4651)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper, presented at the Ottawa Conference an the Conceptual Basis of the Classification of Knowledge, in 1971, is one of Fairthorne's more perceptive works and deserves a wide audience, especially as it breaks new ground in classification theory. In discussing the notion of discourse, he makes a "distinction between what discourse mentions and what discourse is about" [emphasis added], considered as a "fundamental factor to the relativistic nature of bibliographic classification" (p. 360). A table of mathematical functions, for example, describes exactly something represented by a collection of digits, but, without a preface, this table does not fit into a broader context. Some indication of the author's intent ls needed to fit the table into a broader context. This intent may appear in a title, chapter heading, class number or some other aid. Discourse an and discourse about something "cannot be determined solely from what it mentions" (p. 361). Some kind of background is needed. Fairthorne further develops the theme that knowledge about a subject comes from previous knowledge, thus adding a temporal factor to classification. "Some extra textual criteria are needed" in order to classify (p. 362). For example, "documents that mention the same things, but are an different topics, will have different ancestors, in the sense of preceding documents to which they are linked by various bibliographic characteristics ... [and] ... they will have different descendants" (p. 363). The classifier has to distinguish between documents that "mention exactly the same thing" but are not about the same thing. The classifier does this by classifying "sets of documents that form their histories, their bibliographic world lines" (p. 363). The practice of citation is one method of performing the linking and presents a "fan" of documents connected by a chain of citations to past work. The fan is seen as the effect of generations of documents - each generation connected to the previous one, and all ancestral to the present document. Thus, there are levels in temporal structure-that is, antecedent and successor documents-and these require that documents be identified in relation to other documents. This gives a set of documents an "irrevocable order," a loose order which Fairthorne calls "bibliographic time," and which is "generated by the fact of continual growth" (p. 364). He does not consider "bibliographic time" to be an equivalent to physical time because bibliographic events, as part of communication, require delay. Sets of documents, as indicated above, rather than single works, are used in classification. While an event, a person, a unique feature of the environment, may create a class of one-such as the French Revolution, Napoleon, Niagara Falls-revolutions, emperors, and waterfalls are sets which, as sets, will subsume individuals and make normal classes.

0.018095646 = product of:
  0.072382584 = sum of:
    0.072382584 = weight(_text_:und in 3020) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.072382584 = score(doc=3020,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.13955593 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06292258 = queryNorm
        0.51866364 = fieldWeight in 3020, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3020)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Überblick über Aufgaben und Aufbau eines Thesaurus. Aufwand für Herstellung von Thesauri. Begriffe und Begriffsbenennungen. Klassifikationssystem und Thesaurus und ihre Funktionen in einem Dokumentationssystem. Thesaurus-Struktur. Thesaurus-Format. Arbeitsablauf der Thesaurus-Herstellung. Regeln für Begriffsbenennungen, Rechtschreibung u.ä. Weiterentwicklung von Thesauri. Thesauri als Grundlage für kooperative Dokumentation.

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus

0.017769575 = product of:
  0.0710783 = sum of:
    0.0710783 = weight(_text_:und in 1422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0710783 = score(doc=1422,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13955593 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06292258 = queryNorm
        0.50931764 = fieldWeight in 1422, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1422)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Klassifikation und Erkenntnis I. Proc. der Plenarvorträge und der Sektion 1 "Klassifikation und Wissensgewinnung" der 3. Fachtagung der Gesellschaft für Klassifikation, Königstein/Ts., 5.-6.4.1979

0.017769575 = product of:
  0.0710783 = sum of:
    0.0710783 = weight(_text_:und in 1721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0710783 = score(doc=1721,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13955593 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06292258 = queryNorm
        0.50931764 = fieldWeight in 1721, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1721)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Vgl. zur Einführung in die Norm auch die Beiträge von W. Gödert: Bibliothekarische Klassifikationssysteme ... in: Bibliothek: Forschung und Praxis 11(1987) und I. Dahlberg: DIN 32705: ... in: International classification 19(1992)

0.017098779 = product of:
  0.068395115 = sum of:
    0.068395115 = weight(_text_:und in 1248) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068395115 = score(doc=1248,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13955593 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06292258 = queryNorm
        0.4900911 = fieldWeight in 1248, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=1248)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.017098779 = product of:
  0.068395115 = sum of:
    0.068395115 = weight(_text_:und in 990) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.068395115 = score(doc=990,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13955593 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06292258 = queryNorm
        0.4900911 = fieldWeight in 990, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=990)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Imprint

Oldenburg : Bibliotheks- und Informationssystem

Source

Aufbau und Erschließung begrifflicher Datenbanken: Beiträge zur bibliothekarischen Klassifikation. Eine Auswahl von Vorträgen der Jahrestagungen 1993 (Kaiserslautern) und 1994 (Oldenburg) der Gesellschaft für Klassifikation. Hrsg.: H. Havekost u. H.-J. Wätjen

0.016926927 = product of:
  0.06770771 = sum of:
    0.06770771 = weight(_text_:und in 272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06770771 = score(doc=272,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13955593 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06292258 = queryNorm
        0.48516542 = fieldWeight in 272, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=272)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Zeitschrift für Bibliothekswesen und Bibliographie. 4(1957), S.169-176

0.01583369 = product of:
  0.06333476 = sum of:
    0.06333476 = weight(_text_:und in 1439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06333476 = score(doc=1439,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.13955593 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06292258 = queryNorm
        0.4538307 = fieldWeight in 1439, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1439)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Klassifikation kann sich auf verschiedene Gegenstandsbereiche beziehen. Sie ist im Prinzip eine extensionale Vorgangsweise resp. ein extensionales Gebilde auch dann, wenn ihr Gegenstand begriffliche Gebilde bzw. Wissen (Wissensbestandteile) sind. Die Erstellung dieses extensionalen Gebildes, das wir 'Klassat' nennen, beruht auf begrifflichen Analysen. Die Probleme der Begriffstrukturen, der Definitionen und der verschiedenen Eigentümlichkeiten gewisser Begriffe der pragmatischen Sprachen stellen daher Grundlagenprobleme der Klassifikationstheorie dar. Hieraus ergibt sich die Aufgabenstellung: Skizzzierung der logischen Grundstruktur der Klassifikation, Hinweis auf die Relevanz methodologischer Momente der Problemsituation für das Klassieren und auf gewisse strukturelle und semantische Eigentümlichkeiten der Begriffsapparatur der modernen Wissenschaften und der Umgangssprache, die Probleme der Klassifizierungsaufgaben mit such bringen und die bewirken, daß die Klassifikationen oft als praktische Annäherungen anzusehen sind

Source

Wissensstrukturen und Ordnungsmuster. Proc. der 4. Fachtagung der Gesellschaft für Klassifikation, Salzburg, 16.-19.4.1980. Red.: W. Dahlberg

0.01583369 = product of:
  0.06333476 = sum of:
    0.06333476 = weight(_text_:und in 1784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06333476 = score(doc=1784,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.13955593 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06292258 = queryNorm
        0.4538307 = fieldWeight in 1784, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1784)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Dieser Beitrag nimmt eine informationswissenschaftliche Perspektive ein und betrachtet das Phänomen der Klassifikation als Methode und System der Wissensorganisation. Ein Klassifikationssystem wird dabei als Wissensorganisationssystem (engl. knowledge organization system) verstanden, das vor allem im Bereich der Information und Dokumentation zum Einsatz kommt, um dokumentarische Bezugseinheiten (DBE) mit einem kontrollierten Vokabular zu beschreiben (s. Kapitel B 1 Einführung Wissensorganisation). Als eine solche Dokumentationssprache zeichnet sich ein Klassifikationssystem typischerweise durch seine systematische Ordnung aus und dient der inhaltlichen Groberschließung, eignet sich aber auch als Aufstellungssystematik und Hilfsmittel bei der Recherche wie etwa als systematischer Sucheinstieg oder thematischer Filter für Treffermengen. Beim Information Retrieval liegt die Stärke der klassifikatorischen Erschließung durch das hohe Abstraktionsniveau in Überblicks- und Vollständigkeitsrecherchen.

Source

Grundlagen der Informationswissenschaft. Hrsg.: Rainer Kuhlen, Dirk Lewandowski, Wolfgang Semar und Christa Womser-Hacker. 7., völlig neu gefasste Ausg

0.015293613 = product of:
  0.061174452 = sum of:
    0.061174452 = weight(_text_:und in 1676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061174452 = score(doc=1676,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.13955593 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06292258 = queryNorm
        0.4383508 = fieldWeight in 1676, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1676)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Der multiperspektivische Beitrag analysiert mit einem intersektionalen und qualitativen Ansatz diskriminierende Begriffe, Auslassungen und implizit abwertende Strukturen bibliothekarischer Klassifikationen des Globalen Nordens. Am Beispiel der Regensburger Verbundklassifikation (RVK) werden rassistische und sexistische Schnitt- sowie Leerstellen in der Repräsentation queerer Lebens-, Liebes- und Lustentwürfe aufgezeigt. Mögliche Lösungen unter Einbeziehung der Communitys runden den Beitrag ab.

0.013679023 = product of:
  0.05471609 = sum of:
    0.05471609 = weight(_text_:und in 576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05471609 = score(doc=576,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13955593 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06292258 = queryNorm
        0.39207286 = fieldWeight in 576, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=576)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In diesem Beitrag beabsichtigen wir, einen Überblick über den derzeitigen Stand der bibliothekarischen Klassifikationstheorie zu geben. Die Darstellung ist angelehnt an die 1985 erschienene Norm DIN 32 705,Erstellung und Weiterentwicklung von Klassifikationssystemen', stellt jedoch die Problematik bibliothekarischer Klassifikationssysteme in den Vordergrund. In einem zweiten Teil beschäftigen wir uns mit Problemen von Klassifikationssystemen in typischen bibliothekarischen Anwendungsbereichen. Der Schwerpunkt liegt dabei auf dem Online-Katalog; es wird ein Vorschlag zur Verwendung von Facettenklassifikationen diskutiert. Abschließend werden Fragen der kooperativen klassifikatorischen Inhaltserschließung gestreift.

Source

Bibliothek: Forschung und Praxis. 11(1987) H.2, S.152-166

0.013679023 = product of:
  0.05471609 = sum of:
    0.05471609 = weight(_text_:und in 339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05471609 = score(doc=339,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13955593 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06292258 = queryNorm
        0.39207286 = fieldWeight in 339, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=339)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Der Beitrag skizziert die Grundlagen der Arbeit mit Klassifikationen in Bibliotheken und erläutert die Grundbegriffe der bibliothekarischen Klassifikationstheorie. Schwerpunkte bilden die Ordnungsprinzipien und Strukturierungsmittel von Klassifikationen sowie die verschiedenen Klassifikationstypologien. Dabei werden vorzugsweise Beispiele aus Klassifikationen verwendet, die im deutschen Sprachraum verbreitet sind.

Series

Bibliotheks- und Informationspraxis; 53

0.012718785 = product of:
  0.05087514 = sum of:
    0.05087514 = weight(_text_:heading in 3824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05087514 = score(doc=3824,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.38061732 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06292258 = queryNorm
        0.1336648 = fieldWeight in 3824, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3824)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Essential Classification is also an exercise book. Indeed, it contains a number of practical exercises and activities in every chapter, along with suggested answers. Unfortunately, the answers are too often provided without the justifications and explanations that students would no doubt demand. The author has taken great care to explain all technical terms in her text, but formal definitions are also gathered in an extensive 172-term Glossary; appropriately, these terms appear in bold type the first time they are used in the text. A short, very short, annotated bibliography of standard classification textbooks and of manuals for the use of major classification schemes is provided. A detailed 11-page index completes the set of learning aids which will be useful to an audience of students in their effort to grasp the basic concepts of the theory and the practice of document classification in a traditional environment. Essential Classification is a fine textbook. However, this reviewer deplores the fact that it presents only a very "traditional" view of classification, without much reference to newer environments such as the Internet where classification also manifests itself in various forms. In Essential Classification, books are always used as examples, and we have to take the author's word that traditional classification practices and tools can also be applied to other types of documents and elsewhere than in the traditional library. Vanda Broughton writes, for example, that "Subject headings can't be used for physical arrangement" (p. 101), but this is not entirely true. Subject headings can be used for physical arrangement of vertical files, for example, with each folder bearing a simple or complex heading which is then used for internal organization. And if it is true that subject headings cannot be reproduced an the spine of [physical] books (p. 93), the situation is certainly different an the World Wide Web where subject headings as metadata can be most useful in ordering a collection of hot links. The emphasis is also an the traditional paperbased, rather than an the electronic version of classification schemes, with excellent justifications of course. The reality is, however, that supporting organizations (LC, OCLC, etc.) are now providing great quality services online, and that updates are now available only in an electronic format and not anymore on paper. E-based versions of classification schemes could be safely ignored in a theoretical text, but they have to be described and explained in a textbook published in 2005. One last comment: Professor Broughton tends to use the same term, "classification" to represent the process (as in classification is grouping) and the tool (as in constructing a classification, using a classification, etc.). Even in the Glossary where classification is first well-defined as a process, and classification scheme as "a set of classes ...", the definition of classification scheme continues: "the classification consists of a vocabulary (...) and syntax..." (p. 296-297). Such an ambiguous use of the term classification seems unfortunate and unnecessarily confusing in an otherwise very good basic textbook an categorization of concepts and subjects, document organization and subject representation."

0.011969145 = product of:
  0.04787658 = sum of:
    0.04787658 = weight(_text_:und in 4494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04787658 = score(doc=4494,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.13955593 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06292258 = queryNorm
        0.34306374 = fieldWeight in 4494, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4494)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Theorie, Semantik und Organisation von Wissen: Proceedings der 13. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und dem 13. Internationalen Symposium der Informationswissenschaft der Higher Education Association for Information Science (HI) Potsdam (19.-20.03.2013): 'Theory, Information and Organization of Knowledge' / Proceedings der 14. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und Natural Language & Information Systems (NLDB) Passau (16.06.2015): 'Lexical Resources for Knowledge Organization' / Proceedings des Workshops der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) auf der SEMANTICS Leipzig (1.09.2014): 'Knowledge Organization and Semantic Web' / Proceedings des Workshops der Polnischen und Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) Cottbus (29.-30.09.2011): 'Economics of Knowledge Production and Organization'. Hrsg. von W. Babik, H.P. Ohly u. K. Weber

0.011846382 = product of:
  0.04738553 = sum of:
    0.04738553 = weight(_text_:und in 1427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04738553 = score(doc=1427,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13955593 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06292258 = queryNorm
        0.33954507 = fieldWeight in 1427, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1427)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Klassifikation und Erkenntnis II. Proc. der Plenarvorträge und der Sektion 2 u. 3 "Wissensdarstellung und Wissensvermittlung" der 3. Fachtagung der Gesellschaft für Klassifikation, Königstein/Ts., 5.-6.4.1979

0.01147021 = product of:
  0.04588084 = sum of:
    0.04588084 = weight(_text_:und in 1554) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04588084 = score(doc=1554,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.13955593 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06292258 = queryNorm
        0.3287631 = fieldWeight in 1554, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1554)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Beim Vergleich von Klassifikationen mit Frame-Wissensbasen für Expertensysteme zeigen sich einige elementare Gemeinsamkeiten: Beide haben das Ziel einer geordneten Darstellung von Wissen. Beide bilden dazu Klassen und weisen hierarchische Beziehungen zwischen diesen Klassen auf. Anahnd der Wissensrepräsentationssprache FRL (Frame Representation Language) wird untersucht, inwieweit beide Systeme sich in das jeweils andere übertragen lassen. Die FRL speichert Wissen in einer speziellen Datenstruktur, den Frames, die aus einem Framenamen, der den jeweiligen Begriff bezeichnet, und Slots, die die Eigenschaften des Begriffs enthalten, bestehen. Eine effektive Speicherung des Wissens wird dadurch erreicht, daß die Frames in einer polyhierarchischen Struktur geordnet sind und in generischer Relation zueinander stehen müssen. Über die generische Relation lassen sich die Eigenschaften höherer Begriffe auf ihre Subklassen vererben. Es werden die Ergebnisse eines Versuchs dargestellt, Elemente bestehender Universalklassifikationen (DK, BC2) in die FRL zu übertragen

Source

Die Klassifikation und ihr Umfeld: Proc. 10. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Klassifikation, Münster, 18.-21.6.1986. Hrsg.: P.O. Degens