Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.013439858 = product of:
  0.053759433 = sum of:
    0.053759433 = weight(_text_:data in 5523) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053759433 = score(doc=5523,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.3630661 = fieldWeight in 5523, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5523)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper compares the representation of national and international agricultural economic information in the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) and the Library of Congress Classification (LCC). While LCC presents geographically-specific information within a larger context of agriculture as a field of study, NAICS presents agriculture as part of the overall depiction of economic activity in and between countries. To facilitate statistical aggregation and cross-comparison, NAICS has normalized economic activity by presenting it as a series of abstract activities that can be uniformly measured across different countries and regions. This rigorous standardization of economic data, while effective for statistical analysis, threatens to diminish the specific national, cultural and social contexts in which such data must beinterpreted.

0.009052756 = product of:
  0.036211025 = sum of:
    0.036211025 = weight(_text_:data in 5726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036211025 = score(doc=5726,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.24455236 = fieldWeight in 5726, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5726)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This chapter uses a distinction common in literary studies to distinguish between metadata applications for discovery and metadata applications for use. The author argues that metadata systems for resource discovery, such as the Dublin Core, are continuous with the traditions of bibliographic description, and rely on a principle of metonymy: the use of a surrogate or adjunct object to represent another. Metadata systems for resource use, such as semantic markup languages, are continuous with the traditions of database design, and rely on a principle of metaphor: the use of a paradigmatic image or design which conditions how the user will respond to and interact with the data.

0.006466255 = product of:
  0.02586502 = sum of:
    0.02586502 = weight(_text_:data in 2507) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02586502 = score(doc=2507,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 2507, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2507)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

The highly-structured data standards of the Semantic Web contain a promising venue for the migration of library subject access standards onto the World Wide Web. The new functionalities of the Web, however, along with the anticipated capabilities of intelligent Web agents, suggest that information on the Semantic Web will have much more flexibility, diversity and mutability. We need, therefore, a method for recognizing and assessing the principles whereby Semantic Web information can combine together in productive and useful ways. This paper will argue that the concept of warrant in traditional library science, can provide a useful means of translating library knowledge structures into Web-based knowledge structures. Using Derrida's concept of logocentrism, this paper suggests that what while "warrant" in library science traditionally alludes to the principles by which concepts are admitted into the design of a classification or access system, "warrant" on the Semantic Web alludes to the principles by which Web resources can be admitted into a network of information uses. Furthermore, library information practice suggests a far more complex network of warrant concepts that provide a subtlety and richness to knowledge organization that the Semantic Web has not yet attained.

0.006466255 = product of:
  0.02586502 = sum of:
    0.02586502 = weight(_text_:data in 3875) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02586502 = score(doc=3875,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14807065 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046827413 = queryNorm
        0.17468026 = fieldWeight in 3875, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.1620505 = idf(docFreq=5088, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3875)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This presentation applies the principles of phylogenetic classification to the phenomenon of bibliographic relationships in library catalogues. We argue that while the FRBR paradigm supports hierarchical bibliographic relationships between works and their various expressions and manifestations, we need a different paradigm to support associative bibliographic relationships of the kind detected in previous research. Numerous studies have shown the existence and importance of bibliographic relationships that lie outside that hierarchical FRBR model: particularly the importance of bibliographic families. We would like to suggest phylogenetics as a potential means of gaining access to those more elusive and ephemeral relationships. Phylogenetic analysis does not follow the Platonic conception of an abstract work that gives rise to specific instantiations; rather, it tracks relationships of kinship as they evolve over time. We use two examples to suggest ways in which phylogenetic trees could be represented in future library catalogues. The novels of Jane Austen are used to indicate how phylogenetic trees can represent, with greater accuracy, the line of Jane Austen adaptations, ranging from contemporary efforts to complete her unfinished work, through to the more recent efforts to graft horror memes onto the original text. Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey provides an example of charting relationships both backwards and forwards in time, across different media and genres. We suggest three possible means of applying phylogenetic s in the future: enhancement of the relationship designators in RDA, crowdsourcing user tags, and extracting relationship trees through big data analysis.

0.0047583506 = product of:
  0.019033402 = sum of:
    0.019033402 = product of:
      0.038066804 = sum of:
        0.038066804 = weight(_text_:22 in 1413) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038066804 = score(doc=1413,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16398162 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046827413 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1413, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1413)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik