Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.023219395 = product of:
  0.06965818 = sum of:
    0.06965818 = product of:
      0.13931637 = sum of:
        0.13931637 = weight(_text_:indexing in 1590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13931637 = score(doc=1590,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.7325252 = fieldWeight in 1590, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1590)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The paper considers indexing an activity that deals with linguistic entities. It rests an the assumption that a theory of indexing should be based an a philosophy of language, because indexing is concerned with the linguistic representation of meaning. The paper consists of four sections: It begins with some basic considerations an the nature of indexing and the requirements for a theory an this; it is followed by a short review of the use of Wittgenstein's philosophy in LIS-literature; next is an analysis of Wittgenstein's work Philosophical Investigations; finally, we deduce a theory of indexing from this philosophy. Considering an indexing theory a theory of meaning entails that, for the purpose of retrieval, indexing is a representation of meaning. Therefore, an indexing theory is concerned with how words are used in the linguistic context. Furthermore, the indexing process is a communicative process containing an interpretative element. Through the philosophy of the later Wittgenstein, it is shown that language and meaning are publicly constituted entities. Since they form the basis of indexing, a theory hereof must take into account that no single actor can define the meaning of documents. Rather this is decided by the social, historical and linguistic context in which the document is produced, distributed and exchanged. Indexing must clarify and reflect these contexts.

0.014988055 = product of:
  0.044964164 = sum of:
    0.044964164 = product of:
      0.08992833 = sum of:
        0.08992833 = weight(_text_:indexing in 6087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08992833 = score(doc=6087,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.47284302 = fieldWeight in 6087, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6087)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The general concern of Bazerman's book Shaping Written Knowledge. The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science is written knowledge as it is produced by the academy. Bazerman discusses in particular the rhetoric, communicative, and epistemological issues of written knowledge. The article discusses these themes in a library and information science (LIS) perspective in terms of their implications for LIS research. For several reasons, it is argued that this way of scrutinizing into written knowledge ought to be of special interest to LIS research. As an example of a particular field of research in LIS, the article discusses the relationship between indexing theory and written knowledge. Bazerman analyzes written knowledge from a literary point of view. Among other things, it is argued that indexing theory can be seen as part of literary theory in that some of the questions raised by the latter are also raised in indexing theory. Furthermore, it is put forward that the indexer can be considered an author. The indexer produces a text, the document representation, which is the text the user actually meets in the first place. That way, the producer of a document representation is to some extent responsible for the quality of the documents indexed. Having discussed this relationship between written knowledge and LIS research in general and indexing theory in particular, it is concluded that LIS research ought to head toward more humanistic oriented research traditions, if the line of research presented by Bazerman should be considered useful for LIS

0.0067028617 = product of:
  0.020108584 = sum of:
    0.020108584 = product of:
      0.04021717 = sum of:
        0.04021717 = weight(_text_:indexing in 2682) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04021717 = score(doc=2682,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19018644 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.049684696 = queryNorm
            0.21146181 = fieldWeight in 2682, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.8278677 = idf(docFreq=2614, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2682)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The new electronic environments pose a threat and challenge to the theory and practice of knowledge organization. Documents can be approached in electronic retrieval activities in ways not dependent an 'classical' knowledge organization activities such as indexing or classification. Accordingly, an argument stating the qualitative difference of knowledge organization in the new electronic environments must show that knowledge organization is worth pursuing and that it is a valuable support to users of information retrieval (IR) systems. In this paper the qualitative difference of knowledge organization and its role in scholarly communication is framed as a question of ascribing cognitive authority to documents. The concem is to examine and discuss how and to what extent knowledge organization as an epistemic instrument in scholarly communication can contribute to ascribe cognitive authority to scholarly documents. The paper is structured in the following way. Initially, a brief examination of the appearance of cognitive authority in knowledge organization, and how that affects an argument stating the qualitative difference of knowledge organization shall be presented. Secondly, the theoretical approach will be outlined and discussed. Then the empirical analysis applying the theory will be presented. The last part will point to the benefits, limitations, and possibilities of the proposed theoretical approach in relation to the conception of knowledge organization as an epistemic activity in scholarly communication.