Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0067291465 = product of:
  0.047104023 = sum of:
    0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 139) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023552012 = score(doc=139,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 139, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=139)
    0.023552012 = weight(_text_:classification in 139) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023552012 = score(doc=139,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09562149 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.24630459 = fieldWeight in 139, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1847067 = idf(docFreq=4974, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=139)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

This paper analyzes previous work on the classification of Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS), discusses strengths and weaknesses, and proposes a new and integrative framework. It argues that current analyses of the KOS tend to be idiosyncratic and incomplete, relying on a limited number of dimensions of analysis. The paper discusses why and how KOS should be classified on a new basis. Based on the available literature and previous work, the authors propose a wider set of dimensions for the analysis of KOS. These are represented in a taxonomy of KOS. Issues arising are discussed.

0.0025719889 = product of:
  0.036007844 = sum of:
    0.036007844 = weight(_text_:subject in 1010) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036007844 = score(doc=1010,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.33530587 = fieldWeight in 1010, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1010)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Looking for ontology in a search engine, one can find so many different approaches that it can be difficult to understand which field of research the subject belongs to and how it can be useful. The term ontology is employed within philosophy, computer science, and information science with different meanings. To take advantage of what ontology theories have to offer, one should understand what they address and where they come from. In information science, except for a few papers, there is no initiative toward clarifying what ontology really is and the connections that it fosters among different research fields. This article provides such a clarification. We begin by revisiting the meaning of the term in its original field, philosophy, to reach its current use in other research fields. We advocate that ontology is a genuine and relevant subject of research in information science. Finally, we conclude by offering our view of the opportunities for interdisciplinary research.

0.0021217826 = product of:
  0.029704956 = sum of:
    0.029704956 = weight(_text_:subject in 3523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029704956 = score(doc=3523,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10738805 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03002521 = queryNorm
        0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 3523, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3523)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

This work tries to propose a set of evaluation dimensions for the analysis of the knowledge organization systems (KOS), building over previous research and the available literature on the subject. It presents a compiled taxonomy of KOSs, a set of tentative characteristics proposed in the literature and the authors' spectra proposal. The full details of the typology are not covered in the scope of the article, but will be available as an ontology in the near future.