Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.06156048 = sum of:
  0.039894618 = product of:
    0.15957847 = sum of:
      0.15957847 = weight(_text_:author's in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.15957847 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.35821095 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053303987 = queryNorm
          0.44548744 = fieldWeight in 4359, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4359)
    0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.021665862 = product of:
    0.043331724 = sum of:
      0.043331724 = weight(_text_:22 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043331724 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18666148 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.053303987 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4359, 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=4359)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A recent study in information science (IS), raises important issues concerning the value of human indexing and basic theories of indexing and information retrieval, as well as the use of quantitative and qualitative approaches in IS and the underlying theories of knowledge informing the field. The present article uses L&E as the point of departure for demonstrating in what way more social and interpretative understandings may provide fruitful improvements for research in indexing, knowledge organization, and information retrieval. The artcle is motivated by the observation that philosophical contributions tend to be ignored in IS if they are not directly formed as criticisms or invitations to dialogs. It is part of the author's ongoing publication of articles about philosophical issues in IS and it is intended to be followed by analyzes of other examples of contributions to core issues in IS. Although it is formulated as a criticism of a specific paper, it should be seen as part of a general discussion of the philosophical foundation of IS and as a support to the emerging social paradigm in this field.

Date

17. 3.2011 19:22:55

0.016622758 = product of:
  0.033245515 = sum of:
    0.033245515 = product of:
      0.13298206 = sum of:
        0.13298206 = weight(_text_:author's in 1124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13298206 = score(doc=1124,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.35821095 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053303987 = queryNorm
            0.3712395 = fieldWeight in 1124, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1124)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article provides analyses, describes dilemmas, and suggests way forwards in the teaching of knowl­edge organization (KO). The general assumption of the article is that theoretical problems in KO must be the point of departure for teaching KO. Section 2 addresses the teaching of practical, applied and professional KO, focusing on learning about specific knowl­edge organization systems (KOS), specific standards, and specific methods for organizing knowl­edge, but provides arguments for not isolating these aspects from theoretical issues. Section 3 is about teaching theoretical and academic KO, in which the focus is on examining the bases on which KOSs and knowl­edge organization processes such as classifying and indexing are founded. This basically concerns concepts and conceptual relations and should not be based on prejudices about the superiority of either humans or computers for KO. Section 4 is about the study of education in KO, which is considered important because it is about how the field is monitoring itself and about how it should be shaping its own future. Section 5 is about the role of the ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowl­edge Organization in education of KO, emphasizing the need for an interdisciplinary source that may help improve the conceptual clarity in the field. The conclusion suggests some specific recommendations for curricula in KO based on the author's view of KO.

0.013126579 = product of:
  0.026253158 = sum of:
    0.026253158 = product of:
      0.052506316 = sum of:
        0.052506316 = weight(_text_:x in 388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052506316 = score(doc=388,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22508581 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053303987 = queryNorm
            0.23327245 = fieldWeight in 388, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=388)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine challenges facing bibliographic classification at both the practical and theoretical levels. At the practical level, libraries are increasingly dispensing with classifying books. At the theoretical level, many researchers, managers, and users believe that the activity of "classification" is not worth the effort, as search engines can be improved without the heavy cost of providing metadata. Design/methodology/approach - The basic issue in classification is seen as providing criteria for deciding whether A should be classified as X. Such decisions are considered to be dependent on the purpose and values inherent in the specific classification process. These decisions are not independent of theories and values in the document being classified, but are dependent on an interpretation of the discourses within those documents. Findings - At the practical level, there is a need to provide high-quality control mechanisms. At the theoretical level, there is a need to establish the basis of each decision, and to change the philosophy of classification from being based on "standardisation" to being based on classifications tailored to different domains and purposes. Evidence-based practice provides an example of the importance of classifying documents according to research methods. Originality/value - Solving both the practical (organisational) and the theoretical problems facing classification is necessary if the field is to survive both as a practice and as an academic subject within library and information science. This article presents strategies designed to tackle these challenges.

0.013126579 = product of:
  0.026253158 = sum of:
    0.026253158 = product of:
      0.052506316 = sum of:
        0.052506316 = weight(_text_:x in 2033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052506316 = score(doc=2033,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.22508581 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053303987 = queryNorm
            0.23327245 = fieldWeight in 2033, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.2226825 = idf(docFreq=1761, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2033)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Much of the literature of information science and knowledge organization has accepted and built upon Elaine Svenonius's (2004) claim that "paradigmatic relationships are those that are context-free, definitional, and true in all possible worlds" (p. 583). At the same time, the literature demonstrates a common understanding that paradigmatic relations are the kinds of semantic relations used in thesauri and other knowledge organization systems (including equivalence relations, hierarchical relations, and associative relations). This understanding is problematic and harmful because it directs attention away from the empirical and contextual basis for knowledge-organizing systems. Whether A is a kind of X is certainly not context-free and definitional in empirical sciences or in much everyday information. Semantic relations are theory-dependent and, in biology, for example, a scientific revolution has taken place in which many relations have changed following the new taxonomic paradigm named "cladism." This biological example is not an exception, but the norm. Semantic relations including paradigmatic relations are not a priori but are dependent on subject knowledge, scientific findings, and paradigms. As long as information scientists and knowledge organizers isolate themselves from subject knowledge, knowledge organization cannot possibly progress.

0.01263842 = product of:
  0.02527684 = sum of:
    0.02527684 = product of:
      0.05055368 = sum of:
        0.05055368 = weight(_text_:22 in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05055368 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18666148 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053303987 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5237, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5237)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

21. 7.2006 14:11:22

0.01263842 = product of:
  0.02527684 = sum of:
    0.02527684 = product of:
      0.05055368 = sum of:
        0.05055368 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05055368 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18666148 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053303987 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Pages

S.22-36

0.009027443 = product of:
  0.018054886 = sum of:
    0.018054886 = product of:
      0.03610977 = sum of:
        0.03610977 = weight(_text_:22 in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03610977 = score(doc=629,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18666148 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053303987 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 629, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=629)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2013 11:49:13

0.009027443 = product of:
  0.018054886 = sum of:
    0.018054886 = product of:
      0.03610977 = sum of:
        0.03610977 = weight(_text_:22 in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03610977 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18666148 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053303987 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1398, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1398)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.009027443 = product of:
  0.018054886 = sum of:
    0.018054886 = product of:
      0.03610977 = sum of:
        0.03610977 = weight(_text_:22 in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03610977 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18666148 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053303987 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1096, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1096)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

18.11.2023 13:47:22

0.0045137214 = product of:
  0.009027443 = sum of:
    0.009027443 = product of:
      0.018054886 = sum of:
        0.018054886 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018054886 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18666148 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.053303987 = queryNorm
            0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2009 18:13:27