Search (4831 results, page 4 of 242)

0.035033002 = product of:
  0.14013201 = sum of:
    0.14013201 = weight(_text_:heading in 1785) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14013201 = score(doc=1785,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34946126 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.057771947 = queryNorm
        0.40099442 = fieldWeight in 1785, 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=1785)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In the light of a proposal for names of families to be treated as a separate form of name heading in the forthcoming Resource Description and Access, this article examines the treatment of families in the Anglo-American descriptive cataloging tradition and the extent to which names of families have been assigned as non-subject access points. It contrasts manuscript catalogers' practice of assigning family name headings with the general binary division of personal and corporate names, and discusses how an expansion of the library definition of authorship, so as to accommodate the archival concept of provenance, may more readily allow for familial and other non-corporate group authors. It concludes by suggesting that a corporate and non-corporate group categorisation may be unnecessary, and that instead the corporate body class should be revised, so as to encompass all groups of persons.

0.035033002 = product of:
  0.14013201 = sum of:
    0.14013201 = weight(_text_:heading in 1791) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14013201 = score(doc=1791,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34946126 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.057771947 = queryNorm
        0.40099442 = fieldWeight in 1791, 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=1791)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The Subject Analysis Committee Subcommittee on FAST of the Association for Library Collections & Technical Services (ALCTS) was established in the fall of 2004 to explore issues related to the implementation of the Faceted Application of Subject Terminology (FAST) subject heading schema. FAST is being developed at the Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) and is derived from the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) with a simplified syntax. This paper is based on comments by the Subject Analysis Committee Subcommittee on FAST, which reviewed a sample of 5,000 bibliographic records with both LCSH and FAST headings. It provides the library community with some understanding of FAST, a new system of subject cataloging and metadata.

0.035033002 = product of:
  0.14013201 = sum of:
    0.14013201 = weight(_text_:heading in 3323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14013201 = score(doc=3323,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34946126 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.057771947 = queryNorm
        0.40099442 = fieldWeight in 3323, 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=3323)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The German Federal Ministry for Education and Research funded a major terminology mapping initiative, which found its conclusion in 2007. The task of this terminology mapping initiative was to organize, create and manage 'cross-concordances' between controlled vocabularies (thesauri, classification systems, subject heading lists) centred around the social sciences but quickly extending to other subject areas. 64 crosswalks with more than 500,000 relations were established. In the final phase of the project, a major evaluation effort to test and measure the effectiveness of the vocabulary mappings in an information system environment was conducted. The paper reports on the cross-concordance work and evaluation results.

0.035033002 = product of:
  0.14013201 = sum of:
    0.14013201 = weight(_text_:heading in 3503) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14013201 = score(doc=3503,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34946126 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.057771947 = queryNorm
        0.40099442 = fieldWeight in 3503, 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=3503)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

The aim of this study is to develop a software tool, VisuaLCSH, for effective searching, browsing, and maintenance of LCSH. This tool enables visualizing subject headings and hierarchical structures implied and embedded in LCSH. A conceptual framework for converting the hierarchical structure of headings in LCSH to an explicit tree structure is proposed, described, and implemented. The highlights of VisuaLCSH are summarized below: 1) revealing multiple aspects of a heading; 2) normalizing the hierarchical relationships in LCSH; 3) showing multi-level hierarchies in LCSH sub-trees; 4) improving the navigational function of LCSH in retrieval; and 5) enabling the implementation of generic search, i.e., the 'exploding' feature, in searching LCSH.

0.035033002 = product of:
  0.14013201 = sum of:
    0.14013201 = weight(_text_:heading in 22) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14013201 = score(doc=22,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34946126 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.057771947 = queryNorm
        0.40099442 = fieldWeight in 22, 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=22)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Most libraries and other cultural heritage institutions use controlled knowledge organisation systems, such as thesauri, to describe their collections. Unfortunately, as most of these institutions use different such systems, united access to heterogeneous collections is difficult. Things are even worse in an international context when concepts have labels in different languages. In order to overcome the multilingual interoperability problem between European Libraries, extensive work has been done to manually map concepts from different knowledge organisation systems, which is a tedious and expensive process. Within the TELplus project, we developed and evaluated methods to automatically discover these mappings, using different ontology matching techniques. In experiments on major French, English and German subject heading lists Rameau, LCSH and SWD, we show that we can automatically produce mappings of surprisingly good quality, even when using relatively naive translation and matching methods.

0.035033002 = product of:
  0.14013201 = sum of:
    0.14013201 = weight(_text_:heading in 688) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14013201 = score(doc=688,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34946126 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.057771947 = queryNorm
        0.40099442 = fieldWeight in 688, 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=688)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This document defines the Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS), a common data model for sharing and linking knowledge organization systems via the Web. Many knowledge organization systems, such as thesauri, taxonomies, classification schemes and subject heading systems, share a similar structure, and are used in similar applications. SKOS captures much of this similarity and makes it explicit, to enable data and technology sharing across diverse applications. The SKOS data model provides a standard, low-cost migration path for porting existing knowledge organization systems to the Semantic Web. SKOS also provides a lightweight, intuitive language for developing and sharing new knowledge organization systems. It may be used on its own, or in combination with formal knowledge representation languages such as the Web Ontology language (OWL). This document is the normative specification of the Simple Knowledge Organization System. It is intended for readers who are involved in the design and implementation of information systems, and who already have a good understanding of Semantic Web technology, especially RDF and OWL. For an informative guide to using SKOS, see the [SKOS-PRIMER].

0.035033002 = product of:
  0.14013201 = sum of:
    0.14013201 = weight(_text_:heading in 689) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14013201 = score(doc=689,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34946126 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.057771947 = queryNorm
        0.40099442 = fieldWeight in 689, 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=689)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

SKOS Core provides a model for expressing the basic structure and content of concept schemes such as thesauri, classification schemes, subject heading lists, taxonomies, 'folksonomies', other types of controlled vocabulary, and also concept schemes embedded in glossaries and terminologies. The SKOS Core Vocabulary is an application of the Resource Description Framework (RDF), that can be used to express a concept scheme as an RDF graph. Using RDF allows data to be linked to and/or merged with other data, enabling data sources to be distributed across the web, but still be meaningfully composed and integrated. This document is a guide using the SKOS Core Vocabulary, for readers who already have a basic understanding of RDF concepts. This edition of the SKOS Core Guide [SKOS Core Guide] is a W3C Public Working Draft. It is the authoritative guide to recommended usage of the SKOS Core Vocabulary at the time of publication.

0.035033002 = product of:
  0.14013201 = sum of:
    0.14013201 = weight(_text_:heading in 795) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.14013201 = score(doc=795,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34946126 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.057771947 = queryNorm
        0.40099442 = fieldWeight in 795, 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=795)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

SKOS (Simple Knowledge Organisation System) provides a model for expressing the basic structure and content of concept schemes such as thesauri, classification schemes, subject heading lists, taxonomies, folksonomies, and other types of controlled vocabulary. As an application of the Resource Description Framework (RDF) SKOS allows concepts to be documented, linked and merged with other data, while still being composed, integrated and published on the World Wide Web. This document is an implementors guide for those who would like to represent their concept scheme using SKOS. In basic SKOS, conceptual resources (concepts) can be identified using URIs, labelled with strings in one or more natural languages, documented with various types of notes, semantically related to each other in informal hierarchies and association networks, and aggregated into distinct concept schemes. In advanced SKOS, conceptual resources can be mapped to conceptual resources in other schemes and grouped into labelled or ordered collections. Concept labels can also be related to each other. Finally, the SKOS vocabulary itself can be extended to suit the needs of particular communities of practice.

0.03302943 = product of:
  0.13211772 = sum of:
    0.13211772 = weight(_text_:heading in 3864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13211772 = score(doc=3864,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.34946126 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.057771947 = queryNorm
        0.37806115 = fieldWeight in 3864, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3864)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Introduction Multilingualism has long been an issue that have been discussed and debated at ELAG conferences. Members of ELAG have generally considered the role of automation as an important factor in the development of multilingual subject access solutions. It is quite fitting that in the context of this year's theme of "Cross language applications and the web" that the latest development of the MACS project be presented. As the title indicates, this presentation will focus an the latest development of the Link management Interface (LMI) which is the pivotal tool of the MACS multilingual subject access solution. It will update the presentation given by Genevieve ClavelMerrin at last year's ELAG 2002 Conference in Rome. That presentation gave a thorough description of the work that had been undertaken since 1997. In particular, G. Clavel-Merrin described the development of the MACS prototype in which the mechanisms for the establishment and management of links between subject heading languages (SHLs) and the user search interface had been implemented.
Conclusion After a few years of design work and testing, it now appears that the MACS project is almost ready to move to production. The latest LMI release has shown that it can be used in a federated work network and that it is robust enough to manage many thousands of links. Once in the production phase, consideration should be given to extend MACS to other SHLs in other languages. There is still a great interest from other CENL members to participate in this project and the consortium structure will need to be finalised in order to incorporate gradually and successfully new partners in the MACS system. Work will also continue to improve the Search Interface (SI) before it can be successfully integrated in each of the partners OPAC. In this context, some form of access to the local authority files should be investigated so that users can select the most appropriate heading within each subject hierarchies before sending their search to the different target databases. Testing of Z39.50 access to the partners' library catalogues will also continue to further refine search results. The long range prospect of the MACS initiative will have to be addressed in the foreseeable future. Financial as well as institutional support will need to be reinforced and possibly new types of partnership identified. As the need to improve subject access continues to be an issue for many European national libraries, MACS will hopefully remain a viable tool for ensuring cross-language access. One of the potential targets is the TEL project. Within the scope of that initiative, is it possible and useful to envisage the integration of MACS in TEL as an additional access point? It is worth stating the question in light of the challenge to European national libraries to offer improved access to their collections.

0.029194169 = product of:
  0.116776675 = sum of:
    0.116776675 = weight(_text_:heading in 6922) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.116776675 = score(doc=6922,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34946126 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.057771947 = queryNorm
        0.334162 = fieldWeight in 6922, 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=6922)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Authority control of Spanish-language subject headings is described, with a special focus on Mexico. Efforts currently underway in Colombia, Chile, Spain and Mexico, although they share the same language, are somewhat lacking in standardization and cooperation among countries. In the absence of a national authority for bibliographic control in Mexico, a group of university libraries has initiated a cooperative project to build in the near future a national file of Spanish subject headings for the Social Sciences. The project, based upon the experience and rich collections of El Colegio de Mexico, has attracted support from the U.S. Library of Congress and is being partially financed by the U.S.-Mexican Fund for Culture (sponsored by the Rockefeller and Bancomer Foundations). The paper mentions some of the difficulties found in translating LCSH, which is the main resource for the project. These difficulties can include semantics, syndetic structure, or pragmatic problems; most have been solved by supplementing the LCSH with Spanish-language subject heading lists or thesauri

0.029194169 = product of:
  0.116776675 = sum of:
    0.116776675 = weight(_text_:heading in 4816) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.116776675 = score(doc=4816,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34946126 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.057771947 = queryNorm
        0.334162 = fieldWeight in 4816, 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=4816)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The Library of Congress Subject Headings schema (LCSH) is by far the most commonly used and widely accepted subject vocabulary for general application. It is the de facto universal controlled vocabulary and has been a model for developing subject heading systems by many countries. However, LCSH's complex syntax and rules for constructing headings restrict its application by requiring highly skilled personnel and limit the effectiveness of automated authority control. Recent trends, driven to a large extent by the rapid growth of the Web, are forcing changes in bibliographic control systems to make them easier to use, understand, and apply, and subject headings are no exception. The purpose of adapting the LCSH with a simplified syntax to create FAST is to retain the very rich vocabulary of LCSH while making the schema easier to understand, control, apply, and use. The schema maintains upward compatibility with LCSH, and any valid set of LC subject headings can be converted to FAST headings.

0.029194169 = product of:
  0.116776675 = sum of:
    0.116776675 = weight(_text_:heading in 4956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.116776675 = score(doc=4956,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34946126 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.057771947 = queryNorm
        0.334162 = fieldWeight in 4956, 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=4956)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

"1. The LCSH/MeSH Mapping Project The problems that are created when two or more information languages reside in the same system have been widely studied. Most of the solutions to these problems involve the integration or harmonization of the languages (Maniez, 1997). One method for integrating multiple information languages in library catalogues and other databases is to map terms in each language to corresponding terms in the other languages (Mandel, 1987). This is the approach taken by the Northwestem University libraries in a project to map the Library of Congress Subject Heading (LCSH) system to the National Library of Medicine's Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) thesaurus. The mapping project was begun in 1990 and continues at the present time. The project was divided into two phases: (1) a retrospective phase that mapped LCSH as it existed an April 14, 1990 and the 1989 MeSH; and (2) an ongoing phase during which the mapping data have been updated to take into account additions, deletions and changes to the two information languages."

0.029194169 = product of:
  0.116776675 = sum of:
    0.116776675 = weight(_text_:heading in 738) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.116776675 = score(doc=738,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34946126 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.057771947 = queryNorm
        0.334162 = fieldWeight in 738, 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=738)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This classified critical bibliography continues the work initiated by Monika Kirtland and Pauline Cochrane, and furthered by Steven Blake Shubert. Kirtland and Cochrane published a bibliography surveying the literature critical of LCSH from 1944-1979 titled "Critical Views of LCSH - Library of Congress Subject Headings, A Bibliographic and Bibliometric Essay." Shubert analyzed another decade of literature in his article titled "Critical Views of LCSH-Ten Years Later: A Bibliographic Essay." This current bibliography compiles the next twelve years of critical literature from 1990-2001. Persistent concerns of the past fifty-seven years include inadequate syndetic structure, currency or bias of the headings, and lack of specificity in the subject heading list. New developments and research are in the areas of subdivisions, mapping, indexer inconsistency, and post-coordination. LCSH must become more flexible and easier to use in order to increase its scalability and interoperability as an online subject searching tool.

0.029194169 = product of:
  0.116776675 = sum of:
    0.116776675 = weight(_text_:heading in 316) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.116776675 = score(doc=316,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34946126 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.057771947 = queryNorm
        0.334162 = fieldWeight in 316, 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=316)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

International efforts to provide authority control include the work of IFLA, the AUTHOR Project funded by the European Commission, and related work conducted under the auspices of the ICA/CDS. IFLA developed the guidelines Form and Structure of Corporate Headings, documented the formulation of names along the lines of national origin in its publication Names of Persons, and published Guidelines for Authority and Reference Entries. Attention has shifted from a single authority record for each entity that would be shared internationally through the exchange of records to linking parallel authority records for the same entity. The access control of the future will account for difference in cataloging rules, transliteration standards, and cultural differences within the same language as well as for the need for different languages and scripts and will enable users to display the script and form of a heading that they expect. Project AUTHOR is a shared set of resource national authority files that used selections from the authority files of France, the United Kingdom, Spain, Portugal, and Belgium. The prototype tested an adaptation of Z39.50 server software for authority records and displays for user interface. An international standard for authority control records has been developed for corporate bodies, persons, and families. Through joint meetings efforts have been synchronized to develop authority control at the international level.

0.029194169 = product of:
  0.116776675 = sum of:
    0.116776675 = weight(_text_:heading in 1061) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.116776675 = score(doc=1061,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34946126 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.057771947 = queryNorm
        0.334162 = fieldWeight in 1061, 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=1061)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Citation-chasing is proposed as a method of discovering additional terms to enhance subject-search retrieval by broadening and prioritizing the results. Subjects attached to records representing cited works are compared to subjects attached to records representing the original citing sources, and to the subjects yielded by chasing see-also references from the latter group of headings. Original citing sources were yielded via a subject-list search in a library catalog using the subject heading "Language and languages - Origin." A subject-search was employed to avoid subjectivity in choosing sources. References from the sources were searched in OCLC where applicable, and the subject headings were retrieved. The subjects were ranked first by number of citations from original sources, then by total citation-frequency. The results were tiered into 4 groups in a Bradford-like distribution. A similar rank and division was performed on the subjects representing the original citing sources, and those yielded by chasing see-also references. Both in terms of subject frequency and topic type, positive comparisons between citation chasing and see-also references show a confirmation of different methods of yielding alternative subjects. Exclusive results suggest potential mutual complementary value among these different methods.

0.029194169 = product of:
  0.116776675 = sum of:
    0.116776675 = weight(_text_:heading in 1329) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.116776675 = score(doc=1329,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34946126 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.057771947 = queryNorm
        0.334162 = fieldWeight in 1329, 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=1329)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Based on articles published in 1990-2004 in 21 library and information science (LIS) journals, a set of cocitation analyses was performed to study changes in research fronts over the last 15 years, where LIS is at now, and to discuss where it is heading. To study research fronts, here defined as current and influential cocited articles, a citations among documents methodology was applied; and to study changes, the analyses were time-sliced into three 5-year periods. The results show a stable structure of two distinct research fields: informetrics and information seeking and retrieval (ISR). However, experimental retrieval research and user oriented research have merged into one ISR field; and IR and informetrics also show signs of coming closer together, sharing research interests and methodologies, making informetrics research more visible in mainstream LIS research. Furthermore, the focus on the Internet, both in ISR research and in informetrics-where webometrics quickly has become a dominating research area-is an important change. The future is discussed in terms of LIS dependency on technology, how integration of research areas as well as technical systems can be expected to continue to characterize LIS research, and how webometrics will continue to develop and find applications.

0.029194169 = product of:
  0.116776675 = sum of:
    0.116776675 = weight(_text_:heading in 2484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.116776675 = score(doc=2484,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34946126 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.057771947 = queryNorm
        0.334162 = fieldWeight in 2484, 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=2484)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The book provides around 15,000 readymade class numbers relating to Indian subjects and English language and literature. It has covered four Indic religions, namely Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism and Sikhism. For each of these religions class numbers for around fifty subdivisions of each of the impotent South Asian Languages like Assamese, Bengali, English Gujarati, Hindi, Kannada, Malayalam, Marathi, Nepali, Oriya, Punjabi , Sanskrit Sindhi, Sinhalese, Tamil Telugu and Urdu have been provided. he numbers for other South Asian languages noticed in DDC have also been included. For literature of each of the aforementioned languages the class numbers for around 450 subdivisions have been provided. Around 750 class cumbers have been provided for English language and literature. More than 250 class numbers have been provided under the heading History including all the periods for such subjects as Architecture, Conservation of resources, Cultural contact, Economic development, Economic geography, Elections, Elementary educational, Fauna, Flora, Folk, dancing, Folk literature, Folk supply, General clubs, Geography Geology, Higher education, Journalism, Local public debt, Local taxes, Museums, Newspapers, Organizations, Painting and paintings Political situation, Postal organizations, Public administration, Public finance, Public policy on education, Revenue, Secondary education, Social problems/social welfare, Social welfare Problems and services, State taxes, Statistics, Strikes, and so on with more than 40 geographical subdivisions. In addition to this, more than a dozen class number have been provided for all the Indian states and union territories. Necessary instructions have been given as to how class numbers are to be located, and expanded when necessary.

0.029194169 = product of:
  0.116776675 = sum of:
    0.116776675 = weight(_text_:heading in 3559) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.116776675 = score(doc=3559,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34946126 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.057771947 = queryNorm
        0.334162 = fieldWeight in 3559, 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=3559)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to report an investigation into the ways in which Canadian digital library collections have incorporated knowledge organization systems into their search interfaces. Design/methodology/approach - A combination of data-gathering techniques was used. These were as follows: a review of the literature related to the application of knowledge organization systems, deep scanning of Canadian governmental and academic institutions web sites on the web, identify and contact researchers in the area of knowledge organization, and identify and contact people in the governmental organizations who are involved in knowledge organization and information management. Findings - A total of 33 digital collections were identified that have made use of some type of knowledge organization system. Thesauri, subject heading lists and classification schemes were the widely used knowledge organization systems in the surveyed Canadian digital library collections. Research limitations/implications - The target population for this research was limited to governmental and academic digital library collections. Practical implications - An evaluation of the knowledge organization systems interfaces showed that searching, browsing and navigation facilities as well as bilingual features call for improvements. Originality/value - This research contributes to the following areas: digital libraries, knowledge organization systems and services and search interface design.

0.029194169 = product of:
  0.116776675 = sum of:
    0.116776675 = weight(_text_:heading in 3874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.116776675 = score(doc=3874,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34946126 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.057771947 = 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.

0.023355335 = product of:
  0.09342134 = sum of:
    0.09342134 = weight(_text_:heading in 3763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09342134 = score(doc=3763,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.34946126 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.0489783 = idf(docFreq=284, maxDocs=44421)
          0.057771947 = 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.