IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/amedoc/v15y1964i3p217-225.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Two models for retrieval system design

Author

Listed:
  • Donald J. Hillman

Abstract

The dispute concerning the appropriateness of Boolean Algebra as a model for retrieval system design is examined and attention brought to bear upon a set of residual problems affecting the choice of formalism. It is argued that this set of problems insinuates irrelevant considerations into the critical discussion and leads to unnecessary delay in rejecting the Boolean model in favor of more realistic theories. In support of this contention, an argument is examined which purports to distinguish between two interpretations of Boolean Algebra in such a way as to elevate one of them (the class calculus) to the status of a genuine model, while denying the same status to the other (the propositional calculus). This argument is criticized as being unsound and irrelevant. It is held that the elimination of such artificial controversies is a useful prolegemenon for the construction of better theories.

Suggested Citation

  • Donald J. Hillman, 1964. "Two models for retrieval system design," American Documentation, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 217-225, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:amedoc:v:15:y:1964:i:3:p:217-225
    DOI: 10.1002/asi.5090150309
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.5090150309
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/asi.5090150309?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:amedoc:v:15:y:1964:i:3:p:217-225. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.