Search (17 results, page 1 of 1)

0.03964801 = sum of:
  0.021849258 = product of:
    0.13109554 = sum of:
      0.13109554 = weight(_text_:author's in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.13109554 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.2942744 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043789834 = 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)
    0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.017798753 = product of:
    0.035597507 = sum of:
      0.035597507 = weight(_text_:22 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035597507 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15334454 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.043789834 = 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

0.014391522 = product of:
  0.028783044 = sum of:
    0.028783044 = product of:
      0.057566088 = sum of:
        0.057566088 = weight(_text_:c in 3006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057566088 = score(doc=3006,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15104888 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043789834 = queryNorm
            0.381109 = fieldWeight in 3006, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3006)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Bezugnahme auf: Beghtol, C.: Response to Hjoerland and Nicolaisen. In: Knowledge organization. 31(2004) no.1, S.62-63 sowie: Hjoerland, B., J. Nicolaisen: Scientific and scholarly classifications are not "naïve": a comment to Beghtol (2003). In: Knowledge organization. 31(2004) no.1, S.55-61.

0.014391522 = product of:
  0.028783044 = sum of:
    0.028783044 = product of:
      0.057566088 = sum of:
        0.057566088 = weight(_text_:c in 3025) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057566088 = score(doc=3025,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15104888 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043789834 = queryNorm
            0.381109 = fieldWeight in 3025, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3025)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Tendencias de investigación en organización del conocimient: IV Cologuio International de Ciencas de la Documentación , VI Congreso del Capitulo Espanol de ISKO = Trends in knowledge organization research. Eds.: J.A. Frias u. C. Travieso

0.010382607 = product of:
  0.020765213 = sum of:
    0.020765213 = product of:
      0.041530427 = sum of:
        0.041530427 = weight(_text_:22 in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041530427 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15334454 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043789834 = 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

0.010382607 = product of:
  0.020765213 = sum of:
    0.020765213 = product of:
      0.041530427 = sum of:
        0.041530427 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041530427 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15334454 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043789834 = 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

0.010182212 = product of:
  0.020364424 = sum of:
    0.020364424 = product of:
      0.12218654 = sum of:
        0.12218654 = weight(_text_:back in 1122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12218654 = score(doc=1122,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26302487 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.006528 = idf(docFreq=295, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043789834 = queryNorm
            0.4645437 = fieldWeight in 1122, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.006528 = idf(docFreq=295, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1122)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article introduces the field of terminology, which often considers the Austrian engineer Eugen Wüster as its founder in the 1930s, although important principles go back in time, in particular to 18th and 19th century botanists, zoologists and chemists. The contributions of Wüster are presented, as well as the alternative theories, with their criticism of Wüster's position, which came to influence the field after 1990. The article further suggests that domain-analytic studies based on epistemological studies of knowledge domains seems to have been overlooked. The relations between terminology and knowledge organization are addressed, and closer cooperation between the two fields is called for.

0.010176344 = product of:
  0.020352688 = sum of:
    0.020352688 = product of:
      0.040705375 = sum of:
        0.040705375 = weight(_text_:c in 3023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040705375 = score(doc=3023,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15104888 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043789834 = queryNorm
            0.2694848 = fieldWeight in 3023, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3023)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Bezugnahme auf: Beghtol, C.: Classification for information retrieval and classification for knowledge discovery: relationships between 'professional' and 'naive' classifications" in: Knowledge organization. 30(2003), no.2, S.64-73; vgl. dazu auch die Erwiderung von C. Beghtol in: Knowledge organization. 31(2004) no.1, S.62-63.

0.009103857 = product of:
  0.018207714 = sum of:
    0.018207714 = product of:
      0.109246284 = sum of:
        0.109246284 = weight(_text_:author's in 1124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.109246284 = score(doc=1124,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.2942744 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.7201533 = idf(docFreq=144, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043789834 = 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)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  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.

0.00872761 = product of:
  0.01745522 = sum of:
    0.01745522 = product of:
      0.10473132 = sum of:
        0.10473132 = weight(_text_:back in 5074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10473132 = score(doc=5074,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26302487 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.006528 = idf(docFreq=295, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043789834 = queryNorm
            0.3981803 = fieldWeight in 5074, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.006528 = idf(docFreq=295, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5074)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article contrasts Bates' understanding of information as an observer-independent phenomenon with an understanding of information as situational, put forward by, among others, Bateson, Yovits, Spang-Hanssen, Brier, Buckland, Goguen, and Hjorland. The conflict between objective and subjective ways of understanding information corresponds to the conflict between an understanding of information as a thing or a substance versus an understanding of it as a sign. It is a fundamental distinction that involves a whole theory of knowledge, and it has roots back to different metaphors applied in Shannon's information theory. It is argued that a subject-dependent/ situation specific understanding of information is best suited to fulfill the needs in information science and that it is urgent for us to base Information Science (IS; or Library and Information Science, LIS) on this alternative theoretical frame.

0.008634914 = product of:
  0.017269827 = sum of:
    0.017269827 = product of:
      0.034539655 = sum of:
        0.034539655 = weight(_text_:c in 6963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034539655 = score(doc=6963,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15104888 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043789834 = queryNorm
            0.22866541 = fieldWeight in 6963, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6963)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: nfd 49(1998) H.1, S.59-60 (G. Wersig), Erwiderung des Autors darauf in nfd: 49(1998) H.2, S.122-126; JASIS 49(1998) no.11, S.1043 (C. Chen); College and research libraries 59(1998) no.3, S.287-288 (P. Wilson)

0.0074161477 = product of:
  0.0148322955 = sum of:
    0.0148322955 = product of:
      0.029664591 = sum of:
        0.029664591 = weight(_text_:22 in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029664591 = score(doc=629,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15334454 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043789834 = 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

0.0074161477 = product of:
  0.0148322955 = sum of:
    0.0148322955 = product of:
      0.029664591 = sum of:
        0.029664591 = weight(_text_:22 in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029664591 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15334454 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043789834 = 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

0.0074161477 = product of:
  0.0148322955 = sum of:
    0.0148322955 = product of:
      0.029664591 = sum of:
        0.029664591 = weight(_text_:22 in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029664591 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15334454 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043789834 = 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

0.007273009 = product of:
  0.014546018 = sum of:
    0.014546018 = product of:
      0.08727611 = sum of:
        0.08727611 = weight(_text_:back in 832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08727611 = score(doc=832,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26302487 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.006528 = idf(docFreq=295, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043789834 = queryNorm
            0.33181694 = fieldWeight in 832, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.006528 = idf(docFreq=295, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=832)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The basic realist claim is that a mind-independent reality exists. It should be common sense knowledge to accept this claim, just as any theories that try to deny it soon become inconsistent because reality strikes back. In spite of this, antirealist philosophies flourish, not only in philosophy but also in the behavioral and cognitive sciences and in information science. This is highly problematic because it removes the attention from reality to subjective phenomena with no real explanatory power. Realism should not be confused with the view that all scientific claims are true or with any other kind of naiveté concerning knowledge claims. The opposite of realism may be termed antirealism, idealism, or nominalism. Although many people confuse empiricism and positivism with realism, these traditions are by nature strongly antirealist, which is why a sharp distinction should be made between empiricism and realism. Empirical research should not be founded on assumptions about "the given" of observations, but should recognize the theory-laden nature of observations. Domain analysis represents an attempt to reintroduce a realist perspective in library and information science. A realist conception of relevance, information seeking, information retrieval, and knowledge organization is outlined. Information systems of all kinds, including research libraries and public libraries, should be informed by a realist philosophy and a realist information science.

0.005756609 = product of:
  0.011513218 = sum of:
    0.011513218 = product of:
      0.023026437 = sum of:
        0.023026437 = weight(_text_:c in 2290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023026437 = score(doc=2290,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15104888 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043789834 = queryNorm
            0.1524436 = fieldWeight in 2290, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.4494052 = idf(docFreq=3817, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2290)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article is organized in 10 sections: (1) Knowledge Organization (KO) is a wide interdisciplinary field, muck broader than Library and Information Science (LIS). (2) Inside LIS there have been many different approaches and traditions of KO with little mutual influence. These traditions have to a large extent been defined by new technology, for which reason the theoretical integration and underpinning has not been well considered. The most important technology-driven traditions are: a) Manual indexing and classification in libraries and reference works, b) Documentation and scientific communication, c) Information storage and retrieval by computers, d) Citation based KO and e) Full text, hypertext and Internet based approaches. These traditions taken together define very muck the special LIS focus an KO. For KO as a field of research it is important to establish a fruitful theoretical frame of reference for this overall field. This paper provides some suggestions. (3) One important theoretical distinction to consider is the one between social and intellectual forms of KO. Social forms of KO are related to professional training, disciplines and social groups while intellectual organization is related to concepts and theories in the fields to be organized. (4) The social perspective includes in addition the systems of genres and documents as well as the social system of knowledge Producers, knowledge intermediaries and knowledge users. (5) This social system of documents, genres and agents makes available a very complicated structure of potential subject access points (SAPs), which may be used in information retrieval (IR). The basic alm of research in KO is to develop knowledge an how to optimise this system of SAPs and its utilization in IR. (6) SAPs may be seen as signs, and their production and use may be understood from a social semiotic point of view. (7) The concept of paradigms is also helpful because different groups and interests tend to be organized according to a paradigm and to develop different criteria of relevance, and thus different criteria of likeliness in KO. (8) The basic unit in KO is the semantic relation between two concepts, and such relations are embedded in theories. (9) In classification like things are grouped together, but what is considered similar is not a trivial question. (10) The paper concludes with the considering of methods for KO. Basically the methods of any field are connected with epistemological theories. This is also the case with KO. The existing methods as described in the literature of KO fit into a classification of basic epistemological views. The debate about the methods of KO at the deepest level therefore implies an epistemological discussion.

0.0037080739 = product of:
  0.0074161477 = sum of:
    0.0074161477 = product of:
      0.0148322955 = sum of:
        0.0148322955 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0148322955 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15334454 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043789834 = 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

0.0036365045 = product of:
  0.007273009 = sum of:
    0.007273009 = product of:
      0.043638054 = sum of:
        0.043638054 = weight(_text_:back in 3013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043638054 = score(doc=3013,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.26302487 = queryWeight, product of:
              6.006528 = idf(docFreq=295, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043789834 = queryNorm
            0.16590847 = fieldWeight in 3013, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              6.006528 = idf(docFreq=295, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3013)
      0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

It is with very great pleasure that we introduce this special issue of Knowledge Organization on Domain Analysis (DA). Domain analysis is an approach to information science (IS) that emphasizes the social, historical, and cultural dimensions of information. It asserts that collective fields of knowledge, or "domains," form the unit of analysis of information science (IS). DA, elsewhere referred to as a sociocognitive (Hjoerland, 2002b; Jacob & Shaw, 1998) or collectivist (Talja et al, 2004) approach, is one of the major metatheoretical perspectives available to IS scholars to orient their thinking and research. DA's focus an domains stands in contrast to the alternative metatheories of cognitivism and information systems, which direct attention to psychological processes and technological processes, respectively. The first comprehensive international formulation of DA as an explicit point of view was Hjoerland and Albrechtsen (1995). However, a concern for information in the context of a community can be traced back to American library historian and visionary Jesse Shera, and is visible a century ago in the earliest practices of special librarians and European documentalists. More recently, Hjoerland (1998) produced a domain analytic study of the field of psychology; Jacob and Shaw (1998) made an important interpretation and historical review of DA; while Hjoerland (2002a) offered a seminal formulation of eleven approaches to the study of domains, receiving the ASLIB 2003 Award. Fjordback Soendergaard; Andersen and Hjoerland (2003) suggested an approach based an an updated version of the UNISIST-model of scientific communication. In fall 2003, under the conference theme of "Humanizing Information Technology" DA was featured in a keynote address at the annual meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (Hjorland, 2004). These publications and events are evidence of growth in representation of the DA view. To date, informal criticism of domain analysis has followed two tracks. Firstly, that DA assumes its communities to be academic in nature, leaving much of human experience unexplored. Secondly, that there is a lack of case studies illustrating the methods of domain analytic empirical research. Importantly, this special collection marks progress by addressing both issues. In the articles that follow, domains are perceived to be hobbies, professions, and realms of popular culture. Further, other papers serve as models of different ways to execute domain analytic scholarship, whether through traditional empirical methods, or historical and philosophical techniques. Eleven authors have contributed to this special issue, and their backgrounds reflect the diversity of interest in DA. Contributors come from North America, Europe, and the Middle East. Academics from leading research universities are represented. One writer is newly retired, several are in their heyday as scholars, and some are doctoral students just entering this field. This range of perspectives enriches the collection. The first two papers in this issue are invited papers and are, in our opinion, very important. Anders Oerom was a senior lecturer at the Royal Scbool of 'Library and Information Science in Denmark, Aalborg Branch. He retired from this position an March 1, 2004, and this paper is his last contribution in this position. We are grateful that he took the time to complete "Knowledge Organization in the Domain of Art Studies - History, Transition and Conceptual Changes" in spite of many other duties. Versions of the paper have previously been presented at a Ph.D-course in knowledge organization and related versions have been published in Danish and Spanish. In many respects, it represents a model of how a domain could, or should, be investigated from the DA point of view.