Search (25 results, page 2 of 2)

0.0035196205 = product of:
  0.010558861 = sum of:
    0.010558861 = weight(_text_:information in 2028) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010558861 = score(doc=2028,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09073304 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05168566 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2028, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2028)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Bibliographic classification systems purport to organize the world of knowledge for information storage and retrieval purposes in libraries and bibliographies, both manual and online. The major systems that have predominated during the 20th century were originally predicated on the academic disciplines. This structural principle is no longer adequate because multidisciplinray knowledge production has overtaken more traditional disciplinary perspectives and produced communities of cooperation whose documents cannot be accomodated in a disciplinary structure. This paper addresses the problems the major classifications face, reports some attempts to revise these systems to accomodate multidisciplinary works more appropriately, and describes some theoretical research perspectives that attempt to reorient classification research toward the pluralistic needs of multidisciplinary knowledge creation and the perspectives of different discourse communities. Traditionally, the primary desiderata of classification systems were mutual exclusivity and joint exhaustivity. The need to respond to multidisciplinary research may mean that hospitality will replace mutual exclusivity and joint exhaustivity as the most needed and useful characteristics of classification systems in both theory and practice

0.0035196205 = product of:
  0.010558861 = sum of:
    0.010558861 = weight(_text_:information in 2681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010558861 = score(doc=2681,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09073304 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05168566 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2681, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2681)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The problem of how to provide access to information regardless of linguistic or other domain boundaries or cultural traditions can be approached by examining how cultural universals are implemented in specific cultures at specific times and places. The universal concept of "time" and its implementation in calendars is used as an illustration, and how time is treated in knowledge organization systems is briefly described. A broadened definition for the concept of "hospitality" is proposed for use in evaluating the efficacy of knowledge organization systems. The identification of the complementary concept of "cultural hospitality" provides a theoretical framework to inform decisions about the types of access that can (and/or should) be provided by knowledge organization systems that purport to be globally useful and ethically balanced.

0.0035196205 = product of:
  0.010558861 = sum of:
    0.010558861 = weight(_text_:information in 869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010558861 = score(doc=869,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09073304 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05168566 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 869, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=869)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Themenheft: Pioneers in library and information science

0.002933017 = product of:
  0.008799051 = sum of:
    0.008799051 = weight(_text_:information in 1856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008799051 = score(doc=1856,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09073304 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05168566 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1856, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1856)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

0.0029035388 = product of:
  0.008710616 = sum of:
    0.008710616 = weight(_text_:information in 3536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008710616 = score(doc=3536,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09073304 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.05168566 = queryNorm
        0.0960027 = fieldWeight in 3536, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3536)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

I am writing to correct some of the misconceptions that Hjoerland and Nicolaisen appear to have about my paper in the previous issue of Knowledge Organization. I would like to address aspects of two of these misapprehensions. The first is the faulty interpretation they have given to my use of the term "naïve classification," and the second is the kinds of classification systems that they appear to believe are discussed in my paper as examples of "naïve classifications." First, the term "naïve classification" is directly analogous to the widely-understood and widelyaccepted term "naïve indexing." It is not analogous to the terms to which Hjorland and Nicolaisen compare it (i.e., "naïve physics", "naïve biology"). The term as I have defined it is not pejorative. It does not imply that the scholars who have developed naïve classifications have not given profoundly serious thought to their own scholarly work. My paper distinguishes between classifications for new knowledge developed by scholars in the various disciplines for the purposes of advancing disciplinary knowledge ("naïve classifications") and classifications for previously existing knowledge developed by information professionals for the purposes of creating access points in information retrieval systems ("professional classifications"). This distinction rests primarily an the purpose of the kind of classification system in question and only secondarily an the knowledge base of the scholars who have created it. Hjoerland and Nicolaisen appear to have misunderstood this point, which is made clearly and adequately in the title, in the abstract and throughout the text of my paper.