Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Mai, J.-E."
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Mai, J.-E.: Organization of knowledge in a networked environment : a report on the 6th Networked Knowledge Organization Systems (NKOS) Workshop (2003) 0.00
    0.0045979903 = product of:
      0.01379397 = sum of:
        0.01379397 = weight(_text_:a in 2044) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01379397 = score(doc=2044,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.26478532 = fieldWeight in 2044, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2044)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Type
    a
  2. Mai, J.-E.: Semiotics and indexing : an analysis of the subject indexing process (2001) 0.00
    0.0036685336 = product of:
      0.011005601 = sum of:
        0.011005601 = weight(_text_:a in 4480) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011005601 = score(doc=4480,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.21126054 = fieldWeight in 4480, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4480)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    This paper explains at least some of the major problems related to the subject indexing process and proposes a new approach to understanding the process, which is ordinarily described as a process that takes a number of steps. The subject is first determined, then it is described in a few sentences and, lastly, the description of the subject is converted into the indexing language. It is argued that this typical approach characteristically lacks an understanding of what the central nature of the process is. Indexing is not a neutral and objective representation of a document's subject matter but the representation of an interpretation of a document for future use. Semiotics is offered here as a framework for understanding the "interpretative" nature of the subject indexing process. By placing this process within Peirce's semiotic framework of ideas and terminology, a more detailed description of the process is offered which shows that the uncertainty generally associated with this process is created by the fact that the indexer goes through a number of steps and creates the subject matter of the document during this process. The creation of the subject matter is based on the indexer's social and cultural context. The paper offers an explanation of what occurs in the indexing process and suggests that there is only little certainty to its result.
    Type
    a
  3. Mai, J.-E.: Deconstructing the indexing process (2000) 0.00
    0.0035395343 = product of:
      0.010618603 = sum of:
        0.010618603 = weight(_text_:a in 4696) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010618603 = score(doc=4696,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 4696, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4696)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Type
    a
  4. Mai, J.-E.: Analysis in indexing : document and domain centered approaches (2005) 0.00
    0.003462655 = product of:
      0.010387965 = sum of:
        0.010387965 = weight(_text_:a in 1024) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010387965 = score(doc=1024,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 1024, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1024)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    The paper discusses the notion of steps in indexing and reveals that the document-centered approach to indexing is prevalent and argues that the document-centered approach is problematic because it blocks out context-dependent factors in the indexing process. A domain-centered approach to indexing is presented as an alternative and the paper discusses how this approach includes a broader range of analyses and how it requires a new set of actions from using this approach; analysis of the domain, users and indexers. The paper concludes that the two-step procedure to indexing is insufficient to explain the indexing process and suggests that the domain-centered approach offers a guide for indexers that can help them manage the complexity of indexing.
    Type
    a
  5. Mai, J.-E.: Classification in context : Relativity, reality, and representation (2004) 0.00
    0.003065327 = product of:
      0.009195981 = sum of:
        0.009195981 = weight(_text_:a in 3017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009195981 = score(doc=3017,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 3017, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3017)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    This paper surveys classification research literature, discusses various classification theories, and shows that the focus has traditionally been an establishing a scientific foundation for classification research. This paper argues that a shift has taken place, and suggests that contemporary classification research focus an contextual information as the guide for the design and construction of classification schemes.
    Type
    a
  6. Mai, J.-E.: Is classification theory possible? : Rethinking classification research (2003) 0.00
    0.0027982478 = product of:
      0.008394743 = sum of:
        0.008394743 = weight(_text_:a in 2759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008394743 = score(doc=2759,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.16114321 = fieldWeight in 2759, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2759)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    1. Introduction Theoretical context independent explanations of classification could enhance the universality of classification research and make knowledge about classification available to settings other than traditional libraries. There is a tremendous need for constructing classificatory structures in a range of settings many of which are far removed from the environment in which classification theory and research has been practiced in the last century and a half. The construction of classificatory structures an the Internet, intranets, and in knowledge management systems has received some attention lately. The question examined here is whether it is possible to create a single theory of classification that applies to the range of contexts in which classificatory structures are applied. The object of this paper is to question the assumption that bibliographic classification theory can resemble scientific theories. It is argued that the context of any classification influences the use and understanding of the classification to such a degree that the classification cannot be understood separate from its context. Furthermore, the development from being a novice classifier or classificationist to becoming an expert is explored. lt is assumed scientific theories must relate as much to the activity of novices as to the activity of experts and that scientific theories explain both what it is that novices do and what experts do. It is argued that expertise is achieved not through a correct application of a classification theory but through experiences and adjustment to a particular context and that the activities of novices are quite distinct from the activities of experts in that experts draws an the context of the situation and that novices do not. 2. Theory of Classification Langridge (1976) provides an account of the principles of constructing knowledge organization systems and the theoretical underpinnings of different approaches. He identifies four principles that have guided construction of knowledge organization systems: 1) ideological, 2) social purpose, 3) scientific, and 4) the disciplines. The ideological principle organizes knowledge according to an ideology that the knowledge organization system serves. Langridge gives the examples of "the Christian schemes of the Middle Ages and the Soviet scheme which substitutes for the Bible and Christianity the works of Marx and Lenin and the 'religion' of communism" (Langridge, 1976, p. 4-5).
    Type
    a
  7. Mai, J.-E.: Actors, domains, and constraints in the design and construction of controlled vocabularies (2008) 0.00
    0.0019158293 = product of:
      0.005747488 = sum of:
        0.005747488 = weight(_text_:a in 1921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005747488 = score(doc=1921,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.05209492 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045180224 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 1921, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1921)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Classification schemes, thesauri, taxonomies, and other controlled vocabularies play important roles in the organization and retrieval of information in many different environments. While the design and construction of controlled vocabularies have been prescribed at the technical level in great detail over the past decades, the methodological level has been somewhat neglected. However, classification research has in recent years focused on developing approaches to the analysis of users, domains, and activities that could produce requirements for the design of controlled vocabularies. Researchers have often argued that the design, construction, and use of controlled vocabularies need to be based on analyses and understandings of the contexts in which these controlled vocabularies function. While one would assume that the growing body of research on human information behavior might help guide the development of controlled vocabularies shed light on these contexts, unfortunately, much of the research in this area is descriptive in nature and of little use for systems design. This paper discusses these trends and outlines a holistic approach that demonstrates how the design of controlled vocabularies can be informed by investigations of people's interactions with information. This approach is based on the Cognitive Work Analysis framework and outlines several dimensions of human-information interactions. Application of this approach will result is a comprehensive understanding of the contexts in which the controlled vocabulary will function and which can be used for the development of for the development of controlled vocabularies.
    Type
    a