Search (30 results, page 1 of 2)

0.034673885 = product of:
  0.13869554 = sum of:
    0.13869554 = weight(_text_:headings in 958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13869554 = score(doc=958,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.4288957 = fieldWeight in 958, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=958)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article explores the connections between Melvil Dewey and Hegelianism and Charles Cutter and the Scottish Common Sense philosophers. It traces the practice of hierarchy from these philosophical influences to Dewey and Cutter and their legacy to today's Dewey Decimal Classification and Library of Congress Subject Headings. The ubiquity of hierarchy is linked to Dewey's and Cutter's metaphor of organizing the mob of information into an orderly army using the tool of logic.

0.030339649 = product of:
  0.121358596 = sum of:
    0.121358596 = weight(_text_:headings in 517) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.121358596 = score(doc=517,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.37528375 = fieldWeight in 517, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=517)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Classes in the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system function as neighborhoods around focal topics in captions and notes. Topical neighborhoods are generated through specialization and instantiation, complex topic synthesis, index terms and mapped headings, hierarchical force, rules for choosing between numbers, development of the DDC over time, and use of the system in classifying resources. Implications of representation using a formal knowledge representation language are explored.

0.02451814 = product of:
  0.09807256 = sum of:
    0.09807256 = weight(_text_:headings in 3824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09807256 = score(doc=3824,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.30327508 = fieldWeight in 3824, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=3824)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

In Chapter 10, "Controlled indexing languages," Professor Broughton states that a classification scheme is truly a language "since it permits communication and the exchange of information" (p. 89), a Statement with which this reviewer wholly agrees. Chapter 11, however, "Word-based approaches to retrieval," moves us to a different field altogether, offering only a narrow view of the whole world of controlled indexing languages such as thesauri, and presenting disconnected discussions of alphabetical filing, form and structure of subject headings, modern developments in alphabetical subject indexing, etc. Chapters 12 and 13 focus an the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), without even a passing reference to existing subject headings lists in other languages (French RAMEAU, German SWK, etc.). If it is not surprising to see a section on subject headings in a book on classification, the two subjects being taught together in most library schools, the location of this section in the middle of this particular book is more difficult to understand. Chapter 14 brings the reader back to classification, for a discussion of essentials of classification scheme application. The following five chapters present in turn each one of the three major and currently used bibliographic classification schemes, in order of increasing complexity and difficulty of application. The Library of Congress Classification (LCC), the easiest to use, is covered in chapters 15 and 16. The Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) deserves only a one-chapter treatment (Chapter 17), while the functionalities of the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC), which Professor Broughton knows extremely well, are described in chapters 18 and 19. Chapter 20 is a general discussion of faceted classification, on par with the first seven chapters for its theoretical content. Chapter 21, an interesting last chapter on managing classification, addresses down-to-earth matters such as the cost of classification, the need for re-classification, advantages and disadvantages of using print versions or e-versions of classification schemes, choice of classification scheme, general versus special scheme. But although the questions are interesting, the chapter provides only a very general overview of what appropriate answers might be. To facilitate reading and learning, summaries are strategically located at various places in the text, and always before switching to a related subject. Professor Broughton's choice of examples is always interesting, and sometimes even entertaining (see for example "Inside out: A brief history of underwear" (p. 71)). With many examples, however, and particularly those that appear in the five chapters an classification scheme applications, the novice reader would have benefited from more detailed explanations. On page 221, for example, "The history and social influence of the potato" results in this analysis of concepts: Potato - Sociology, and in the UDC class number: 635.21:316. What happened to the "history" aspect? Some examples are not very convincing: in Animals RT Reproduction and Art RT Reproduction (p. 102), the associative relationship is not appropriate as it is used to distinguish homographs and would do nothing to help either the indexer or the user at the retrieval stage.
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."

0.021671178 = product of:
  0.08668471 = sum of:
    0.08668471 = weight(_text_:headings in 1323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08668471 = score(doc=1323,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = 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.

0.019165568 = product of:
  0.07666227 = sum of:
    0.07666227 = weight(_text_:und in 3020) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07666227 = score(doc=3020,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.1478073 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = 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

0.018820217 = product of:
  0.07528087 = sum of:
    0.07528087 = weight(_text_:und in 1422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07528087 = score(doc=1422,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1478073 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = 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

0.018820217 = product of:
  0.07528087 = sum of:
    0.07528087 = weight(_text_:und in 1721) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07528087 = score(doc=1721,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1478073 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = 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)

0.01810976 = product of:
  0.07243904 = sum of:
    0.07243904 = weight(_text_:und in 1248) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07243904 = score(doc=1248,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1478073 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = 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)

0.01810976 = product of:
  0.07243904 = sum of:
    0.07243904 = weight(_text_:und in 990) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07243904 = score(doc=990,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1478073 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = 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

0.017927747 = product of:
  0.07171099 = sum of:
    0.07171099 = weight(_text_:und in 272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07171099 = score(doc=272,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1478073 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = 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

0.017336942 = product of:
  0.06934777 = sum of:
    0.06934777 = weight(_text_:headings in 4636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06934777 = score(doc=4636,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.32337824 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.21444786 = fieldWeight in 4636, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.8524013 = idf(docFreq=942, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4636)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Brian C. Vickery, Director and Professor, School of Library, Archive and Information Studies, University College, London, is a prolific writer on classification and information retrieval. This paper was one of the earliest to present initial efforts by the Classification Research Group (q.v.). In it he clearly outlined the need for classification in subject indexing, which, at the time he wrote, was not a commonplace understanding. In fact, some indexing systems were made in the first place specifically to avoid general classification systems which were out of date in all fast-moving disciplines, especially in the "hard" sciences. Vickery picked up Julia Pettee's work (q.v.) an the concealed classification in subject headings (1947) and added to it, mainly adopting concepts from the work of S. R. Ranganathan (q.v.). He had already published a paper an notation in classification, pointing out connections between notation, words, and the concepts which they represent. He was especially concerned about the structure of notational symbols as such symbols represented relationships among subjects. Vickery also emphasized that index terms cover all aspects of a subject so that, in addition to having a basis in classification, the ideal index system should also have standardized nomenclature, as weIl as show evidence of a systematic classing of elementary terms. The necessary linkage between system and terms should be one of a number of methods, notably:

0.016769873 = product of:
  0.06707949 = sum of:
    0.06707949 = weight(_text_:und in 1439) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06707949 = score(doc=1439,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.1478073 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = 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

0.016769873 = product of:
  0.06707949 = sum of:
    0.06707949 = weight(_text_:und in 1784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06707949 = score(doc=1784,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.1478073 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = 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

0.016197862 = product of:
  0.06479145 = sum of:
    0.06479145 = weight(_text_:und in 1676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06479145 = score(doc=1676,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1478073 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = 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.

0.014487808 = product of:
  0.05795123 = sum of:
    0.05795123 = weight(_text_:und in 576) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05795123 = score(doc=576,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1478073 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = 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

0.014487808 = product of:
  0.05795123 = sum of:
    0.05795123 = weight(_text_:und in 339) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05795123 = score(doc=339,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1478073 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = 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

0.012676831 = product of:
  0.050707325 = sum of:
    0.050707325 = weight(_text_:und in 4494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050707325 = score(doc=4494,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.1478073 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = 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

0.01254681 = product of:
  0.05018724 = sum of:
    0.05018724 = weight(_text_:und in 1427) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05018724 = score(doc=1427,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1478073 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = 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

0.012148396 = product of:
  0.048593584 = sum of:
    0.048593584 = weight(_text_:und in 1554) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048593584 = score(doc=1554,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1478073 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = 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

0.010865855 = product of:
  0.04346342 = sum of:
    0.04346342 = weight(_text_:und in 2942) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04346342 = score(doc=2942,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1478073 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.06664293 = queryNorm
        0.29405463 = fieldWeight in 2942, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.217899 = idf(docFreq=13141, maxDocs=44421)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2942)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Theme

Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus