-
Gnoli, C.; Poli, R.: Levels of reality and levels of representation (2004)
0.01
0.011027076 = product of:
0.022054153 = sum of:
0.022054153 = product of:
0.044108305 = sum of:
0.044108305 = weight(_text_:k in 3533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.044108305 = score(doc=3533,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18639012 = queryWeight, product of:
3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
0.052213363 = queryNorm
0.23664509 = fieldWeight in 3533, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3533)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Ontology, in its philosophical meaning, is the discipline investigating the structure of reality. Its findings can be relevant to knowledge organization, and models of knowledge can, in turn, offer relevant ontological suggestions. Several philosophers in time have pointed out that reality is structured into a series of integrative levels, like the physical, the biological, the mental, and the cultural, and that each level plays as a base for the emergence of more complex levels. More detailed theories of levels have been developed by Nicolai Hartmann and James K. Feibleman, and these have been considered as a source for structuring principles in bibliographic classification by both the Classification Research Group (CRG) and Ingetraut Dahlberg. CRG's analysis of levels and of their possible application to a new general classification scheme based an phenomena instead of disciplines, as it was formulated by Derek Austin in 1969, is examined in detail. Both benefits and open problems in applying integrative levels to bibliographic classification are pointed out.
-
Gnoli, C.: ¬The meaning of facets in non-disciplinary classifications (2006)
0.01
0.00918923 = product of:
0.01837846 = sum of:
0.01837846 = product of:
0.03675692 = sum of:
0.03675692 = weight(_text_:k in 2291) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.03675692 = score(doc=2291,freq=2.0), product of:
0.18639012 = queryWeight, product of:
3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
0.052213363 = queryNorm
0.19720423 = fieldWeight in 2291, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2291)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Source
- Knowledge organization for a global learning society: Proceedings of the 9th International ISKO Conference, 4-7 July 2006, Vienna, Austria. Hrsg.: G. Budin, C. Swertz u. K. Mitgutsch
-
Gnoli, C.: Naturalism vs pragmatism in knowledge organization (2004)
0.01
0.0089919055 = product of:
0.017983811 = sum of:
0.017983811 = product of:
0.071935244 = sum of:
0.071935244 = weight(_text_:authors in 2663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.071935244 = score(doc=2663,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23803101 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052213363 = queryNorm
0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 2663, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2663)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Several authors remark that categories used in languages, including indexing ones, are affected by cultural biases, and do not reflect reality in an objective way. Hence knowledge organization would essentially be determined by pragmatic factors. However, human categories are connected with the structure of reality through biological bonds, and this allows for a naturalistic approach too. Naturalism has been adopted by Farradane in proposing relational categories, and by Dahlberg and the CRG in applying the theory of integrative levels to general classification schemes. The latter is especially relevant for possible developments in making the structure of schemes independent from disciplines, and in applying it to digital information retrieval.
-
Gnoli, C.: Ten long-term research questions in knowledge organization (2008)
0.01
0.0089919055 = product of:
0.017983811 = sum of:
0.017983811 = product of:
0.071935244 = sum of:
0.071935244 = weight(_text_:authors in 2134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.071935244 = score(doc=2134,freq=2.0), product of:
0.23803101 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.052213363 = queryNorm
0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 2134, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2134)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Research can benefit by periodical consideration of its status in a long-term perspective. In knowledge organization (KO), a number of basic questions remain to be addressed in the 21st century. Ten of them are identified and synthetically discussed: (1) Can KO principles be extended to a broader scope, including hypertexts, multimedia, museum objects, and monuments? (2) Can the two basic approaches, ontological and epistemological, be reconciled? (3) Can any ontological foundation of KO be identified? (4) Should disciplines continue to be the structural base of KO? (5) How can viewpoint warrant be respected? (6) How can KO be adapted to local collection needs? (7) How can KO deal with changes in knowledge? (8) How can KO systems represent all the dimensions listed above? (9) How can software and formats be improved to better serve these needs? (10) Who should do KO: information professionals, authors or readers?
