Search (16 results, page 1 of 1)

0.05339515 = product of:
  0.26697573 = sum of:
    0.26697573 = weight(_text_:objects in 3014) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.26697573 = score(doc=3014,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.37497213 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07054885 = queryNorm
        0.7119882 = fieldWeight in 3014, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3014)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Domains are basically constituted of three kinds of theories and concepts: (1) ontological theories and concepts about the objects of human activity; (2) epistemological theories and concepts about knowledge and the ways to obtain knowledge, implying methodological principles about the ways objects are investigated; and (3) sociological concepts about the groups of people concerned with the objects. There are complicated relations between these elements. Basic theories about those relationships are, for example, forms of philosophical realism and social constructivism. In this paper these concepts and theories are introduced, and their implications for knowledge organization outlined, with illustrations drawn from this special issue of Knowledge Organization.

0.022019787 = product of:
  0.110098936 = sum of:
    0.110098936 = weight(_text_:objects in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.110098936 = score(doc=789,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.37497213 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07054885 = queryNorm
        0.29361898 = fieldWeight in 789, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=789)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.014516883 = product of:
  0.07258441 = sum of:
    0.07258441 = weight(_text_:7 in 4644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07258441 = score(doc=4644,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.233712 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07054885 = queryNorm
        0.31057203 = fieldWeight in 4644, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4644)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

DOI:10.5771/0943-7444-2018-7-609..

Source

Knowledge organization. 45(2018) no.7, S.609-639

0.013381752 = product of:
  0.06690876 = sum of:
    0.06690876 = weight(_text_:22 in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06690876 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24705005 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07054885 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

21. 7.2006 14:11:22

0.013381752 = product of:
  0.06690876 = sum of:
    0.06690876 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06690876 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24705005 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07054885 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Pages

S.22-36

0.0120974025 = product of:
  0.060487013 = sum of:
    0.060487013 = weight(_text_:7 in 594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.060487013 = score(doc=594,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.233712 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07054885 = queryNorm
        0.25881004 = fieldWeight in 594, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=594)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

Vgl.: doi.org/10.5771/0943-7444-2021-7-8-473.

Source

Knowledge organization. 48(2021) no.7/8, S.473-498

0.011470074 = product of:
  0.057350367 = sum of:
    0.057350367 = weight(_text_:22 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057350367 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24705005 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07054885 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

17. 3.2011 19:22:55

0.0095583955 = product of:
  0.047791976 = sum of:
    0.047791976 = weight(_text_:22 in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047791976 = score(doc=629,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24705005 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07054885 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 2.2013 11:49:13

0.0095583955 = product of:
  0.047791976 = sum of:
    0.047791976 = weight(_text_:22 in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047791976 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24705005 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07054885 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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

0.0095583955 = product of:
  0.047791976 = sum of:
    0.047791976 = weight(_text_:22 in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047791976 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24705005 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07054885 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

18.11.2023 13:47:22

0.008554155 = product of:
  0.042770773 = sum of:
    0.042770773 = weight(_text_:7 in 1892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042770773 = score(doc=1892,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.233712 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07054885 = queryNorm
        0.18300632 = fieldWeight in 1892, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1892)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

7. 6.2008 10:53:48

0.008554155 = product of:
  0.042770773 = sum of:
    0.042770773 = weight(_text_:7 in 4476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042770773 = score(doc=4476,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.233712 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07054885 = queryNorm
        0.18300632 = fieldWeight in 4476, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4476)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.7, S.1301-1310

0.008554155 = product of:
  0.042770773 = sum of:
    0.042770773 = weight(_text_:7 in 2033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042770773 = score(doc=2033,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.233712 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07054885 = queryNorm
        0.18300632 = fieldWeight in 2033, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2033)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.7, S.1367-1373

0.0068433243 = product of:
  0.03421662 = sum of:
    0.03421662 = weight(_text_:7 in 2290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03421662 = score(doc=2290,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.233712 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07054885 = queryNorm
        0.14640506 = fieldWeight in 2290, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2290)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.005132493 = product of:
  0.025662465 = sum of:
    0.025662465 = weight(_text_:7 in 1265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025662465 = score(doc=1265,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.233712 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07054885 = queryNorm
        0.109803796 = fieldWeight in 1265, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3127685 = idf(docFreq=4376, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1265)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Content

"In a new article published in Journal of Documentation, 2002, I claim that the special competency of information specialists and information scientists are related to "domain analysis." Information science grew out of special librarianship and documentation (cf. Williams, 1997), and implicit in its tradition has in my opinion been a focus an subject knowledge. Although domain analysis has earlier been introduced in JASIST (Hjoerland & Albrechtsen, 1995), the new article introduces 11 Specific approaches to domain analysis, which I Claim together define the Specific competencies of information specialists. The approaches are (I) Producing and evaluating literature guides and subject gateways, (2) Producing and evaluating special classifications and thesauri, (3) Research an and competencies in indexing and retrieving information specialties, (4) Knowledge about empirical user studies in subject areas, (5) Producing and interpreting bibliometrical studies, (6) Historical studies of information structures and Services in domains, (7) Studies of documents and genres in knowledge domains, (8) Epistemological and critical studies of different paradigms, assumptions, and interests in domains, (9) Knowledge about terminological studies, LSP (Languages for Special Purposes), and discourse analysis in knowledge fields, (10) Knowledge about and studies of structures and institutions in scientific and professional communication in a domain, (11) Knowledge about methods and results from domain analytic studies about professional cognition, knowledge representation in computer science and artificial intelligence. By bringing these approaches together, the paper advocates a view which may have been implicit in previous literature but which has not before been Set out systematically. The approaches presented here are neither exhaustive nor mutually exhaustve, but an attempt is made to present the state of the art. Specific examples and selective reviews of literature are provided, and the strength and drawback of each of these approaches are being discussed. It is my Claim that the information specialist who has worked with these 1 1 approaches in a given domain (e.g., music, sociology, or chemistry) has a special expertise that should not be mixed up with the kind of expertise taught at universities in corresponding subjects. Some of these 11 approaches are today well-known in schools of LIS. Bibliometrics is an example, Other approaches are new and represent a view of what should be introduced in the training of information professionals. First and foremost does the article advocates the view that these 1 1 approaches should be seen as supplementary. That the Professional identity is best maintained if Chose methods are applied to the same examples (same domain). Somebody would perhaps feel that this would make the education of information professionals too narrow. The Counter argument is that you can only understand and use these methods properly in a new domain, if you already have a deep knowledge of the Specific information problems in at least orte domain. It is a dangerous illusion to believe that one becomes more competent to work in any field if orte does not know anything about any domain. The special challenge in our science is to provide general background for use in Specific fields. This is what domain analysis is developed for. Study programs that allow the students to specialize and to work independent in the selected field (such as, for example, the Curriculum at the Royal School of LIS in Denmark) should fit well with the intentions in domain analysis. In this connection it should be emphasized that the 11 approaches are presented as general approaches that may be used in about any domain whatsoever. They should, however, be seen in connection. If this is not the case, then their relative strengths and weaknesses cannot be evaluated. The approaches do not have the same status. Some (e.g., empirical user studies) are dependent an others (e.g., epistemological studies).

0.0047791977 = product of:
  0.023895988 = sum of:
    0.023895988 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023895988 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24705005 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.07054885 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 3.2009 18:13:27