Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Chaves Guimarães, J.A."
  • × author_ss:"Tognoli, N.B."
  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Tognoli, N.B.; Chaves Guimarães, J.A.: Challenges of knowledge representation in contemporary archival science (2012) 0.00
    0.0024857575 = product of:
      0.004971515 = sum of:
        0.004971515 = product of:
          0.00994303 = sum of:
            0.00994303 = weight(_text_:a in 860) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.00994303 = score(doc=860,freq=12.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 860, product of:
                  3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                    12.0 = termFreq=12.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=860)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Since its emergence as a discipline, in the nineteenth century (1889), the theory and practice of Archival Science have focused on the arrangement and description of archival materials as complementary and inseparable nuclear processes that aim to classify, to order, to describe and to give access to records. These processes have their specific goals sharing one in common: the representation of archival knowledge. In the late 1980 a paradigm shift was announced in Archival Science, especially after the appearance of the new forms of document production and information technologies. The discipline was then invited to rethink its theoretical and methodological bases founded in the nineteenth century so it could handle the contemporary archival knowledge production, organization and representation. In this sense, the present paper aims to discuss, under a theoretical perspective, the archival representation, more specifically the archival description facing these changes and proposals, in order to illustrate the challenges faced by Contemporary Archival Science in a new context of production, organization and representation of archival knowledge.
    Source
    Categories, contexts and relations in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Twelfth International ISKO Conference 6-9 August 2012, Mysore, India. Eds.: Neelameghan, A. u. K.S. Raghavan
    Type
    a
  2. Tognoli, N.B.; Rodrigues, A.C.; Chaves Guimarães, J.A.: Archival knowledge : conceptual frameworks for recent terminology in the KO domain (2019) 0.00
    0.0020296127 = product of:
      0.0040592253 = sum of:
        0.0040592253 = product of:
          0.008118451 = sum of:
            0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 5637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.008118451 = score(doc=5637,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 5637, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5637)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Despite having the principle of provenance as its guiding element, the archival knowledge organization still prescinds, for conceptual purposes, of greater clarity of its object-the archival knowledge-a fundamental aspect for the sedimentation of the archival studies and of its discursive community in the scope of KO. This article aims to define a conceptual framework to archival knowledge by using Dahlberg's concept theory. In this vein, it established the nominal concept or definiendum-archival knowledge-seeking to analyze its real definition, composed by three inseparable definiens: the concept of fonds, the knowledge of documentary form and the knowledge of document creation context. At the end, it demonstrates that archival knowledge can be defined as being a reunion of three indivisible facets in which the archival bond will be contemplated.
    Type
    a