Search (36 results, page 1 of 2)

0.030507896 = product of:
  0.061015792 = sum of:
    0.061015792 = product of:
      0.122031584 = sum of:
        0.122031584 = weight(_text_:subject in 2247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.122031584 = score(doc=2247,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.7497667 = fieldWeight in 2247, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2247)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article presents a theoretical investigation of the concept of 'subject' or 'subject matter' in library and information science. Most conceptions of 'subject' in the literature are not explicit but implicit. Various indexing and classification theories, including automatic indexing and citation indexing, have their own more or less implicit concepts of subject. This fact puts the emphasis on making the implicit theorie of 'subject matter' explicit as the first step. ... The different conceptions of 'subject' can therefore be classified into epistemological positions, e.g. 'subjective idealism' (or the empiric/positivistic viewpoint), 'objective idealism' (the rationalistic viewpoint), 'pragmatism' and 'materialism/realism'. The third and final step is to propose a new theory of subject matter based on an explicit theory of knowledge. In this article this is done from the point of view of a realistic/materialistic epistemology. From this standpoint the subject of a document is defined as the epistemological potentials of that document

Footnote

Ergänzung zu Langridge, D.W.: Subject analysis

0.030507896 = product of:
  0.061015792 = sum of:
    0.061015792 = product of:
      0.122031584 = sum of:
        0.122031584 = weight(_text_:subject in 6963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.122031584 = score(doc=6963,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.7497667 = fieldWeight in 6963, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6963)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Introduction - information seeking and subject representation - subject searching and subject representation data - subject analysis and knowledge organization - the concept of subject or subject matter and basic epistemological positions - methodological consequences for information science - science, discipline, and subject field as a framework for information seeking - information needs and cognitive and scientific development

LCSH

Subject cataloging

Subject

Subject cataloging

0.025167733 = product of:
  0.050335467 = sum of:
    0.050335467 = product of:
      0.10067093 = sum of:
        0.10067093 = weight(_text_:subject in 3418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10067093 = score(doc=3418,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.61852604 = fieldWeight in 3418, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3418)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article presents and discusses the concept "subject" or subject matter (of documents) as it has been examined in library and information science (LIS) for more than 100 years. Different theoretical positions are outlined and it is found that the most important distinction is between documentoriented views versus request-oriented views. The documentoriented view conceives subject as something inherent in documents, whereas the request-oriented view (or the policybased view) understands subject as an attribution made to documents in order to facilitate certain uses of them. Related concepts such as concepts, aboutness, topic, isness and ofness are also briefly presented. The conclusion is that the most fruitful way of defining "subject" (of a document) is the document's informative or epistemological potentials, that is, the document's potentials of informing users and advancing the development of knowledge.

0.022510704 = product of:
  0.045021407 = sum of:
    0.045021407 = product of:
      0.090042815 = sum of:
        0.090042815 = weight(_text_:subject in 7555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.090042815 = score(doc=7555,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.5532265 = fieldWeight in 7555, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7555)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.022510704 = product of:
  0.045021407 = sum of:
    0.045021407 = product of:
      0.090042815 = sum of:
        0.090042815 = weight(_text_:subject in 3826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.090042815 = score(doc=3826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.5532265 = fieldWeight in 3826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3826)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.021270616 = product of:
  0.042541232 = sum of:
    0.042541232 = product of:
      0.085082464 = sum of:
        0.085082464 = weight(_text_:subject in 3182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.085082464 = score(doc=3182,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.5227499 = fieldWeight in 3182, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3182)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article presents and discusses the concept "subject" or subject matter (of documents) as it has been examined in library and information science (LIS) for more than 100 years. Different theoretical positions are outlined and it is found that the most important distinction is between document-oriented views versus request-oriented views. The document-oriented view conceive subject as something inherent in documents, whereas the request-oriented view (or the policy based view) understand subject as an attribution made to documents in order to facilitate certain uses of them. Related concepts such as concepts, aboutness, topic, isness and ofness are also briefly presented. The conclusion is that the most fruitful way of defining "subject" (of a document) is the documents informative or epistemological potentials, that is, the documents potentials of informing users and advance the development of knowledge.

Content

Contents: 1. Introduction; 2. Theoretical views: 2.1 Charles Ammi Cutter (1837-1903), 2.2 S. R. Ranganathan (1892-1972), 2.3 Patrick Wilson (1927-2003), 2.4 "Content oriented" versus "request oriented" views, 2.5 Issues of subjectivity and objectivity, 2.6 The subject knowledge view, 2.7 Other views and definitions; 3. Related concepts: 3.1 Words versus concepts versus subjects, 3.2 Aboutness, 3.3 Topic, 3.4 Isness, 3.5 Ofness, 3.6 Theme.

0.017016493 = product of:
  0.034032986 = sum of:
    0.034032986 = product of:
      0.06806597 = sum of:
        0.06806597 = weight(_text_:subject in 3783) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06806597 = score(doc=3783,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.41819993 = fieldWeight in 3783, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3783)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Different approaches to the classification of a knowledge field include empiristic, rationalistic, historistic, and pragmatic methods. This paper demonstrates how these different methids have been applied to the classification of psychology. An etymological apporach is insufficient to define the subject matter of psychology, because other terms can be used to describe the same domain. To define the subject matter of psychology from the point of view of its formal establishment as a science and academic discipline (in Leipzig, 1879) it is also insufficient because this was done in specific historical circumstances, which narrowed the subject matter to physiologically-related issues. When defining the subject area of a scientific field it is necessary to consider how different ontological and epistemological views have made their influences. A subject area and the approaches by which this subject area has been studied cannot be separated from each other without tracing their mutual historical interactions. The classification of a subject field is theory-laden and thus cannot be neutral or ahistorical. If classification research can claim to have a method that is more general than the study of concrete developments in the single knowledge fields the key is to be found in the general epistemological theories. It is shown how basic epistemological assumptions have formed the different approaches to psychology during the 20th century. The progress in the understanding of basic philosophical questions is decisive both for the development of a knowledge field and as the point of departure of classification. The theoretical principles developed in this paper are applied in a brief analysis of some concrete classification systems, including the one used by PsycINFO / Psychologcal Abstracts. The role of classification in modern information retrieval is also briefly discussed

0.01591747 = product of:
  0.03183494 = sum of:
    0.03183494 = product of:
      0.06366988 = sum of:
        0.06366988 = weight(_text_:subject in 310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06366988 = score(doc=310,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.3911902 = fieldWeight in 310, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=310)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Recently, a new book on knowledge organization has been published by Greenwood Press. The title is 'Information seeking and subject representation: an activity-theoretical approach to information science'. This book presents a new general theory for information science and knowledge organization, based on a theory of information seeking. The author is Dr. Birger Hjørland, Royal School of Library and Information Science. In 1994, he presented his work on theory for KO at the 3rd International ISKO conference in Copenhagen. The book aims to provide both a new understanding for the foundations of information science and knowledge organization, and to provide new directions in research and teaching within these fields. KO (Hanne Albrechtsen) has interviewed Birger HjÝrland in Copenhagen about his views on knowledge organization and subject representation

0.01591747 = product of:
  0.03183494 = sum of:
    0.03183494 = product of:
      0.06366988 = sum of:
        0.06366988 = weight(_text_:subject in 6032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06366988 = score(doc=6032,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.3911902 = fieldWeight in 6032, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6032)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Theories of aboutness and theories of subject analysis and of related concepts such as topicality are often isolated from each other in the literature of information science (IS) and related disciplines. In IS it is important to consider the nature and meaning of these concepts, which is closely related to theoretical and metatheoretical issues in information retrieval (IR). A theory of IR must specify which concepts should be regarded as synonymous concepts and explain how the meaning of the nonsynonymous concepts should be defined

0.0139248865 = product of:
  0.027849773 = sum of:
    0.027849773 = product of:
      0.055699546 = sum of:
        0.055699546 = weight(_text_:subject in 157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055699546 = score(doc=157,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.34222013 = fieldWeight in 157, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=157)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Bradfordrsquos law of scattering is said to be about subject scattering in information sources. However, in spite of a corpus of writings about the meaning of the word ldquosubjectrdquo and equivalent terms such as ldquoaboutnessrdquo or ldquotopicalityrdquo, the meaning of ldquosubjectrdquo has never been explicitly addressed in relation to Bradfordrsquos law. This paper introduces a distinction between Lexical scattering, Semantic scattering, and Subject scattering. Neither Bradford himself nor any follower has explicitly considered the differences between these three and the implications for the practical applications of Bradfordrsquos law. Traditionally, Bradfordrsquos law has been seen as a neutral and objective tool for the selection of the most central information sources in a field. However, it is hard to find actual reports that describe how Bradfordrsquos law has been applied in practical library and information services. Theoretical as well as historical evidence suggest that the selection of journals based on Bradford-distributions tend to favorite dominant theories and views while suppressing views other than the mainstream at a given time.

0.0139248865 = product of:
  0.027849773 = sum of:
    0.027849773 = product of:
      0.055699546 = sum of:
        0.055699546 = weight(_text_:subject in 3326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.055699546 = score(doc=3326,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.34222013 = fieldWeight in 3326, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3326)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In 1975 Tefko Saracevic declared the subject knowledge view to be the most fundamental perspective of relevance. This paper examines the assumptions in different views of relevance, including the system's view and the user's view and offers a reinterpretation of these views. The paper finds that what was regarded as the most fundamental view by Saracevic in 1975 has not since been considered (with very few exceptions). Other views, which are based on less fruitful assumptions, have dominated the discourse on relevance in information retrieval and information science. Many authors have reexamined the concept of relevance in information science, but have neglected the subject knowledge view, hence basic theoretical assumptions seem not to have been properly addressed. It is as urgent now as it was in 1975 seriously to consider the subject knowledge view of relevance (which may also be termed the epistemological view). The concept of relevance, like other basic concepts, is influenced by overall approaches to information science, such as the cognitive view and the domain-analytic view. There is today a trend toward a social paradigm for information science. This paper offers an understanding of relevance from such a social point of view.

0.013643546 = product of:
  0.027287092 = sum of:
    0.027287092 = product of:
      0.054574184 = sum of:
        0.054574184 = weight(_text_:subject in 649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054574184 = score(doc=649,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.33530587 = fieldWeight in 649, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=649)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Information science (IS) is concerned with the searching and retrieval of text and other information (IR), mostly in electronic databases and on the Internet. Such databases contain fulltext (or other kinds of documents, e.g. pictures) and/or document representations and/or different kinds of 'value added information'. The core theoretical problems for IS is related to the determination of the usefulness of different 'subject access points' in electronic databases. This problem is again related to theories of meaning and semantics. This paper outlines some important principles in the design of documents done in the field of 'composition studies'. It maps the possible subject access points and presents research done on each kind of these. It shows how theorie of IR must build on or relate to different theories of concepts and meaning. It discusses 2 contrasting theories of semantics worked out by Ludwig Wittgenstein: 'the picture theory' and 'the theory od language games' and demonstrates the different consequences for such theories for IR. Finally, the implications for information professionals are discussed

0.013643546 = product of:
  0.027287092 = sum of:
    0.027287092 = product of:
      0.054574184 = sum of:
        0.054574184 = weight(_text_:subject in 304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054574184 = score(doc=304,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.33530587 = fieldWeight in 304, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=304)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article presents a socio-cognitive perspective in relation to information science (IS) and information retrieval (IR). The differences between traditional cognitive views and the socio-cognitive or domain-analytic view are outlined. It is claimed that, given elementary skills in computer-based retrieval, people are basically interacting with representations of subject literatures in IR. The kind of knowledge needed to interact with representations of subject literatures is discussed. It is shown how different approaches or "paradigms" in the represented literature imply different information needs and relevance criteria (which users typically cannot express very well, which is why IS cannot primarily rely on user studies). These principles are exemplified by comparing behaviorism, cognitivism, psychoanalysis, and neuroscience as approaches in psychology. The relevance criteria implicit in each position are outlined, and empirical data are provided to prove the theoretical claims. It is further shown that the most general level of relevance criteria is implied by epistemological theories. The article concludes that the fundamental problems of IS and IR are based in epistemology, which therefore becomes the most important allied field for IS.

0.013643546 = product of:
  0.027287092 = sum of:
    0.027287092 = product of:
      0.054574184 = sum of:
        0.054574184 = weight(_text_:subject in 4464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054574184 = score(doc=4464,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.33530587 = fieldWeight in 4464, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4464)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

What kind of knowledge is needed by information specialists working in a specific subject field like medicine, sociology or music? What approaches have been used in information science to produce kinds of domain-specific knowledge? This article presents 11 approaches to domain analysis. Together these approaches make a unique competence for information specialists. The approaches are: producing literature guides and subject gateways, producing special classifications and thesauri; research an indexing and retrieving specialities, empirical user studies; bibliometrical studies; historical studies; document and genre studies; epistemological and critical studies; terminological studies, LSP (languages for special purposes), discourse studies; studies of structures and institutions in scientific communication; and domain analysis in professional cognition and artificial intelligence. Specific examples and selective reviews of literature are provided, and the strengths and drawbacks of each of these approaches are discussed

0.013643546 = product of:
  0.027287092 = sum of:
    0.027287092 = product of:
      0.054574184 = sum of:
        0.054574184 = weight(_text_:subject in 830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054574184 = score(doc=830,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.33530587 = fieldWeight in 830, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=830)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this research is to examine the practical potentials of Bradford's law in relation to core-journal identification. Design/methodology/approach - Literature studies and empirical tests (Bradford analyses). Findings - Literature studies reveal that the concept of "subject" has never been explicitly addressed in relation to Bradford's law. The results of two empirical tests (Bradford analyses) demonstrate that different operationalizations of the concept of "subject" produce quite different lists of core-journals. Further, an empirical test reveals that Bradford analyses function discriminatorily against minority views. Practical implications - Bradford analysis can no longer be regarded as an objective and neutral method. The received view on Bradford's law needs to be revised. Originality/value - The paper questions one of the old dogmas of the field.

0.011369622 = product of:
  0.022739245 = sum of:
    0.022739245 = product of:
      0.04547849 = sum of:
        0.04547849 = weight(_text_:subject in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04547849 = score(doc=789,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.27942157 = fieldWeight in 789, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=789)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Any ontological theory commits us to accept and classify a number of phenomena in a more or less specific way-and vice versa: a classification tends to reveal the theoretical outlook of its creator. Objects and their descriptions and relations are not just "given," but determined by theories. Knowledge is fallible, and consensus is rare. By implication, knowledge organization has to consider different theories/views and their foundations. Bibliographical classifications depend on subject knowledge and on the same theories as corresponding scientific and scholarly classifications. Some classifications are based on logical distinctions, others on empirical examinations, and some on mappings of common ancestors or on establishing functional criteria. To evaluate a classification is to involve oneself in the research which has produced the given classification. Because research is always based more or less on specific epistemological ideals (e.g., empiricism, rationalism, historicism, or pragmatism), the evaluation of classification includes the evaluation of the epistemological foundations of the research on which given classifications have been based. The field of knowledge organization itself is based on different approaches and traditions such as user-based and cognitive views, facet-analytical views, numeric taxonomic approaches, bibliometrics, and domain-analytic approaches. These approaches and traditions are again connected to epistemological views, which have to be considered. Only the domain-analytic view is fully committed to exploring knowledge organization in the light of subject knowledge and substantial scholarly theories.

0.011369622 = product of:
  0.022739245 = sum of:
    0.022739245 = product of:
      0.04547849 = sum of:
        0.04547849 = weight(_text_:subject in 2033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04547849 = score(doc=2033,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.27942157 = fieldWeight in 2033, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, 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.

0.011255352 = product of:
  0.022510704 = sum of:
    0.022510704 = product of:
      0.045021407 = sum of:
        0.045021407 = weight(_text_:subject in 4723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045021407 = score(doc=4723,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 4723, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4723)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Epistemological theories of information science have a fundamental impact on theories about users, their cognition and information seeking behaviour, on subject analysis, and on classification. They also have a fundamental impact on information retrieval, on the understanding of 'information', on the view of documents and their role in communication, on information selection, on theories about the functions of information systems and on the role of information professionals. Asserts that information science must be based on epistemological knowledge, which avoids blind alleys and is not outdated. Shows limitations in the dominant approaches to information science and proposes alternative viewpoints

0.01113991 = product of:
  0.02227982 = sum of:
    0.02227982 = product of:
      0.04455964 = sum of:
        0.04455964 = weight(_text_:subject in 2760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04455964 = score(doc=2760,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16275941 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = queryNorm
            0.2737761 = fieldWeight in 2760, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2760)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Special classifications have been somewhat neglected in KO compared to general classifications. The methodology of constructing special classifications is important, however, also for the methodology of constructing general classification schemes. The methodology of constructing special classifications can be regarded as one among about a dozen approaches to domain analysis. The methodology of (special) classification in LIS has been dominated by the rationalistic facet-analytic tradition, which, however, neglects the question of the empirical basis of classification. The empirical basis is much better grasped by, for example, bibliometric methods. Even the combination of rational and empirical methods is insufficient. This presentation will provide evidence for the necessity of historical and pragmatic methods for the methodology of classification and will point to the necessity of analyzing "paradigms". The presentation covers the methods of constructing classifications from Ranganathan to the design of ontologies in computer science and further to the recent "paradigm shift" in classification research. 1. Introduction Classification of a subject field is one among about eleven approaches to analyzing a domain that are specific for information science and in my opinion define the special competencies of information specialists (Hjoerland, 2002a). Classification and knowledge organization are commonly regarded as core qualifications of librarians and information specialists. Seen from this perspective one expects a firm methodological basis for the field. This paper tries to explore the state-of-the-art conceming the methodology of classification. 2. Classification: Science or non-science? As it is part of the curriculum at universities and subject in scientific journals and conferences like ISKO, orte expects classification/knowledge organization to be a scientific or scholarly activity and a scientific field. However, very often when information specialists classify or index documents and when they revise classification system, the methods seem to be rather ad hoc. Research libraries or scientific databases may employ people with adequate subject knowledge. When information scientists construct or evaluate systems, they very often elicit the knowledge from "experts" (Hjorland, 2002b, p. 260). Mostly no specific arguments are provided for the specific decisions in these processes.

0.010789698 = product of:
  0.021579396 = sum of:
    0.021579396 = product of:
      0.043158792 = sum of:
        0.043158792 = weight(_text_:22 in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043158792 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15935703 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04550679 = 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