Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.042074133 = product of:
  0.16829653 = sum of:
    0.0837749 = weight(_text_:case in 4561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0837749 = score(doc=4561,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.48085782 = fieldWeight in 4561, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4561)
    0.08452163 = weight(_text_:studies in 4561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08452163 = score(doc=4561,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.53452307 = fieldWeight in 4561, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4561)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

This paper examines collections of citations that individual users contribute to social tagging systems such as Delicious and LibraryThing. I characterize these personal collections, furnished with various forms of metadata and arranged for Web display, as a means of communication, where a particular sensibility molds guiding principles for resource selection, description, and categorization. Using several analytic frameworks from museum studies, I present three brief case studies that interrogate both the substance and the means of expression achieved in such collections, which I term "expressive bibliographies." In considering these case studies, I explore how an explicit rhetorical perspective might inform purposeful design of expressive bibliography.

0.012285966 = product of:
  0.049143866 = sum of:
    0.027884906 = weight(_text_:studies in 3549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027884906 = score(doc=3549,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.17634688 = fieldWeight in 3549, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3549)
    0.02125896 = product of:
      0.04251792 = sum of:
        0.04251792 = weight(_text_:area in 3549) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04251792 = score(doc=3549,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.21775553 = fieldWeight in 3549, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3549)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Purpose In this conceptual essay, the purpose of this paper is to argue that the structure of databases and other information systems provides valuable information beyond their content. The author contends that reading databases - as a separate, distinct activity from retrieving and reading the documents that databases contain - is an under-studied form of human-information interaction. Because the act of reading databases encourages awareness, reflection, and control over information systems, the author aligns the author's proposal with "slow" principles, as exemplified by the slow food movement. Design/methodology/approach This paper presents an extended argument to demonstrate the value of reading a database. Reading a database involves understanding the relationship between database structure and database content as an interpretation of the world. For example, when a supermarket puts vermicelli in the pasta section but rice vermicelli in the Asian section, the supermarket suggests that rice vermicelli is more "Asian" than "noodle." To construct the author's argument, the author uses examples that range from everyday, mundane activities with information systems (such as using maps and automated navigation systems) to scientific and technical work (systematic reviews of medical evidence). Findings The slow, interpretively focused information interactions of reading databases complement the "fast information" approach of outcome-oriented retrieval. To facilitate database reading activities, research should develop tools that focus user attention on the application of database structure to database contents. Another way of saying this is that research should exploit the interactive possibilities of metadata, either human-created or algorithmically generated. Originality/value This paper argues that information studies research focuses too heavily on seeking and retrieval. Seeking and retrieval are just two of the many interactions that constitute our everyday activities with information. Reading databases is an area particularly ripe with design possibilities.

0.0073287776 = product of:
  0.05863022 = sum of:
    0.05863022 = weight(_text_:case in 4248) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05863022 = score(doc=4248,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.3365304 = fieldWeight in 4248, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4248)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to employ a case study of the Omeka content management system to demonstrate how the adoption and implementation of a metadata standard (in this case, Dublin Core) can result in contrasting rhetorical arguments regarding metadata utility, quality, and reliability. In the Omeka example, the author illustrate a conceptual disconnect in how two metadata stakeholders - standards creators and standards users - operationalize metadata quality. For standards creators such as the Dublin Core community, metadata quality involves implementing a standard properly, according to established usage principles; in contrast, for standards users like Omeka, metadata quality involves mere adoption of the standard, with little consideration of proper usage and accompanying principles. Design/methodology/approach The paper uses an approach based on rhetorical criticism. The paper aims to establish whether Omeka's given ends (the position that Omeka claims to take regarding Dublin Core) align with Omeka's guiding ends (Omeka's actual argument regarding Dublin Core). To make this assessment, the paper examines both textual evidence (what Omeka says) and material-discursive evidence (what Omeka does). Findings The evidence shows that, while Omeka appears to argue that adopting the Dublin Core is an integral part of Omeka's mission, the platform's lack of support for Dublin Core implementation makes an opposing argument. Ultimately, Omeka argues that the appearance of adopting a standard is more important than its careful implementation. Originality/value This study contributes to our understanding of how metadata standards are understood and used in practice. The misalignment between Omeka's position and the goals of the Dublin Core community suggests that Omeka, and some portion of its users, do not value metadata interoperability and aggregation in the same way that the Dublin Core community does. This indicates that, although certain values regarding standards adoption may be pervasive in the metadata community, these values are not equally shared amongst all stakeholders in a digital library ecosystem. The way that standards creators (Dublin Core) understand what it means to "adopt a standard" is different from the way that standards users (Omeka) understand what it means to "adopt a standard."

0.0043570166 = product of:
  0.034856133 = sum of:
    0.034856133 = weight(_text_:studies in 3958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034856133 = score(doc=3958,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 3958, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3958)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to examine how systems for organizing information construct rhetorical arguments for a particular interpretation of their subject matter. Design/methodology/approach - The paper synthesizes a conceptual framework from the field of rhetoric and uses that framework to analyze how existing organizational schemes present evidence in support of arguments regarding the material being organized. Findings - Organizational schemes can present logical arguments as posed in rhetoric, using two forms of evidence for their claims: relationship evidence from the category structure and resource evidence from the ways that items are assigned to categories. Research limitations/implications - This study does not attempt to identify all types of evidence that organizational schemes might use in argumentation. Further research may describe additional forms of evidence and argumentative structures. Practical implications - When creating organizational schemes, designers might develop a strategy to facilitate persuasive argumentation. Moreover, because arguments may be either strengthened or undermined through the assignment of resources to categories, both indexing and collection development may be seen as contributing to the overall design of an organizational scheme. Originality/value - While many researchers have asserted that organizational schemes form arguments, and while various studies have described what information systems might be said to communicate, this study focuses on how such communication may take place more or less effectively. This analysis foregrounds the potential for organizational schemes to be systematically and purposefully designed as rhetorical communication, to express particular ideas.