Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0024924895 = product of:
  0.004984979 = sum of:
    0.004984979 = product of:
      0.009969958 = sum of:
        0.009969958 = weight(_text_:a in 4811) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009969958 = score(doc=4811,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.22931081 = fieldWeight in 4811, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4811)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The power of knowledge structures is to represent, to contextualize, to communicate, and to help structure knowledge in a useful way. Traditional classifications tackle the challenges of creating knowledge structures for a wide-ranging set of concepts and are set up to reflect cumulated literary and scientific warrant for many purposes, but especially the useful ordering of knowledge. Ontologies focus on modelling domains with a vigorous dedication to eliciting the most useful entities and relationships for that domain. Both leverage structure and relationships to provide a way of representing not only the entities under consideration but also the way they work in a network of meaning. At the same time the foundation of many knowledge structures is bounded by a given perspective reflecting the purposes of that structure. This paper examines two cases, the structure of knowledge as expressed in the curriculum at an American university, and the notion of "cohabitation" as a construct that shifts in meaning over time and situations. In both cases context helps define meaning.

Source

Classification and ontology: formal approaches and access to knowledge: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar, 19-20 September 2011, The Hague, The Netherlands. Eds.: A. Slavic u. E. Civallero

Type

a

0.0023499418 = product of:
  0.0046998835 = sum of:
    0.0046998835 = product of:
      0.009399767 = sum of:
        0.009399767 = weight(_text_:a in 3481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009399767 = score(doc=3481,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 3481, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3481)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Through its focus on the semantic, rather than the syntactic axis of bibliographic classification systems, Beghtol's 1986 article on four perspectives of warrant provides us with a set of conceptual tools that can be used to understand, analyze, evaluate and design any knowledge-representation system. In this way warrant, as a concept, joins the ranks of relevance as a pivotal notion, offering a lens for contextualizing the meanings and uses to which ever-evolving classifications are put. With reference to examples, this paper concludes by invoking Beghtol's warrant as a means for systematically evaluating how legacy and emerging classification systems measure up to their mandates. Bezugnahme auf: Beghtol, C.: Semantic validity: concepts of warrants in bibliographic classification systems. In: Library resources and technical services. 30(1986), S.109-125.

Content

Beitrag in einem Special issue: A Festschrift for Clare Beghtol

Type

a

0.0018318077 = product of:
  0.0036636153 = sum of:
    0.0036636153 = product of:
      0.0073272306 = sum of:
        0.0073272306 = weight(_text_:a in 5641) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0073272306 = score(doc=5641,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 5641, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5641)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

No matter how immutable a classification may seem, it is, after all, an artifact of the human imagination and functions in a particular place and time. The author describes her personal inquiry into classification as a knowledge-representation process. She traces her changing perspectives on how classifications should be viewed and evaluated by posing the following questions: 1) How does the classification process enable or constrain knowing about something or discovering something we did not already know?; 2) In what ways might we develop classifications that enhance our ability to discover meaningful information in the information stores that form a part of our scholarly as well as our everyday lives?; and 3) How might classifications mask or distort knowledge, and how might they serve to disenfranchise people and ideas? These questions are considered through a discussion of classification structures, personal classification, the link of classification to theory, everyday working classifications, translation of classifications, cognitive aspects, browsing, genres, warrant, and the difficulties of navigating complex ontological commitments. The through thread is the importance of context, because classifications can only be seen with respect to the human endeavors that generate them.

Type

a