Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.014161265 = product of:
  0.070806324 = sum of:
    0.070806324 = weight(_text_:22 in 4928) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.070806324 = score(doc=4928,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18300882 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 4928, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4928)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Journal of academic librarianship. 22(1996) no.2, S.111-117

0.006830811 = product of:
  0.034154054 = sum of:
    0.034154054 = weight(_text_:it in 1368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034154054 = score(doc=1368,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.22595796 = fieldWeight in 1368, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1368)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Based on Foucault's exploration of the author-function, the current study investigates knowledge organization systems' (KOS's) treatment of persons who are also authors and the ability to record attributes, relationships and events related to those persons. FRBR and FRAD do well to extend the information in library authority records beyond the personal name as a character string to include attributes of the person, yet aspects of the person as an author and author-function can be enhanced. This paper begins with a discussion of the author-function as identified by Foucault and the complexities of identity that arise. Next, it reviews the Library and Information Science (LIS) literature on authorship and name authorities, then briefly discusses the current library content standard (Resource Description and Access, (RDA)) and the current library encoding standard, (MAchine Readable Cataloging, (MARC)). It then examines four projects making use of person data to enhance the author-function: Europeana, AustLit, The American Civil War: Letters and Diaries, and DBpedia. We conclude that additional attributes, relationships, and events are pivotal to moving toward more Foucault-friendly KOS's in libraries. Concerns with this more robust model of recoding information include the ethics of recording attributes of persons and problems of end-user searching in current systems.

0.006762158 = product of:
  0.03381079 = sum of:
    0.03381079 = weight(_text_:it in 2272) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03381079 = score(doc=2272,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.22368698 = fieldWeight in 2272, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2272)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

For most of its modern history library and information science has been governed by the mode of thinking best characterized as positivism. This epistemology, shared with most of the social sciences for some time, features the quest for universal laws and the reduction of all phenomena, including behavioral, cognitive, and so on, to the physical, among other elements. This means to knowledge is unworkable for this field; a prposed replacement for it is hermeneutical phenomenology. This article outlines the elements of a revised epistemological approach that seeks an understanding of the essences of things (such as the library) and that takes into account, among other things, the intentional stances of the human actors within the realm of library and information science. Such a re-formated epistemology allows for a different set of questions asked and a different approach to answering them

0.0038640907 = product of:
  0.019320453 = sum of:
    0.019320453 = weight(_text_:it in 3944) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019320453 = score(doc=3944,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15115225 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.052260913 = queryNorm
        0.12782113 = fieldWeight in 3944, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.892262 = idf(docFreq=6664, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3944)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to update and review the concept of warrant in Library and Information Science (LIS) and to introduce the concept of epistemic warrant from philosophy. Epistemic warrant can be used to assess the content of a work; and therefore, it can be a complement to existing warrants, such as literary warrant, in the development of controlled vocabularies. In this proposal, the authors aim to activate a theoretical discussion on warrant in order to revise and improve the validity of the concept of warrant from the user and classifier context to the classificationist context. Design/methodology/approach The authors have conducted an extensive literary review and close reading of the concept of warrant in LIS and knowledge organization in order to detect the different stances and gaps in which the concept of epistemic warrant might apply. The authors adopted an epistemological approach, in the vein of some of the previous commenters on warrant, such as Hope Olson and Birger Hjørland, and built upon the theoretical framework of different authors working with the concept of warrant outside knowledge organization, such as Alvin Plantinga and Alvin Goldman. Findings There are some authors and critics in the literature that have voiced for a more epistemological approach to warrant (in opposition to a predominantly ontological approach). In this sense, epistemic warrant would be an epistemological warrant and also a step forward toward pragmatism in a prominently empiricist context such as the justification of the inclusion of terms in a controlled vocabulary. Epistemic warrant can be used to complement literary warrant in the development of controlled vocabularies as well as in the classification of works. Originality/value This paper presents an exhaustive update and revision of the concept of warrant, analyzing, systematizing, and reviewing the different warrants discussed in the LIS literary warrant in a critical way. The concept of epistemic warrant for categorizational activities is introduced to the LIS field for the first time. This paper, and the proposal of epistemic warrant, has the potential to contribute to the theoretical and practical discussions on the development of controlled vocabularies and assessment of the content of works.