Beghtol, C.: Response to Hjoerland and Nicolaisen (2004)
0.02
0.016685098 = product of:
0.033370197 = sum of:
0.033370197 = product of:
0.06674039 = sum of:
0.06674039 = weight(_text_:e.g in 3536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06674039 = score(doc=3536,freq=4.0), product of:
0.23393378 = queryWeight, product of:
5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
0.044842023 = queryNorm
0.28529608 = fieldWeight in 3536, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
5.2168427 = idf(docFreq=651, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3536)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Second, the paper posits that these different reasons for creating classification systems strongly influence the content and extent of the two kinds of classifications, but not necessarily their structures. By definition, naïve classifications for new knowledge have been developed for discrete areas of disciplinary inquiry in new areas of knowledge. These classifications do not attempt to classify the whole of that disciplinary area. That is, naïve classifications have a explicit purpose that is significantly different from the purpose of the major disciplinary classifications Hjoer-land and Nicolaisen provide as examples of classifications they think I discuss under the rubric of "naïve classifications" (e.g., classifications for the entire field of archaeology, biology, linguistics, music, psychology, etc.). My paper is not concerned with these important classifications for major disciplinary areas. Instead, it is concerned solely and specifically with scholarly classifications for small areas of new knowledge within these major disciplines (e.g., cloth of aresta, double harpsichords, child-rearing practices, anomalous phenomena, etc.). Thus, I have nowhere suggested or implied that the broad disciplinary classifications mentioned by Hjoerland and Nicolaisen are appropriately categorized as "naïve classifications." For example, I have not associated the Periodic System of the Elements with naïve classifications, as Hjoerland and Nicolaisen state that I have done. Indeed, broad classifications of this type fall well outside the definition of naïve classifications set out in my paper. In this case, too, 1 believe that Hjorland and Nicolaisen have misunderstood an important point in my paper. I agree with a number of points made in Hjorland and Nicolaisen's paper. In particular, I agree that researchers in the knowledge organization field should adhere to the highest standards of scholarly and scientific precision. For that reason, I am glad to have had the opportunity to respond to their paper.
