Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0142422225 = product of:
  0.05696889 = sum of:
    0.05696889 = weight(_text_:social in 4123) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05696889 = score(doc=4123,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.30839854 = fieldWeight in 4123, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4123)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.0142422225 = product of:
  0.05696889 = sum of:
    0.05696889 = weight(_text_:social in 4553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05696889 = score(doc=4553,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.30839854 = fieldWeight in 4553, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4553)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

While the organization and representation of information and knowledge have historically been done by professionals, the rise of social media has spread the notion that this can be done more collaboratively. A more collaborative approach would entail a change in the role of professionals and in the goals and values of the systems. This paper explores the notion of authority and the role of professionals in a changing environment where more people participate in the organization and representation of information and knowledge. The paper questions the traditional role of the professionals and argues that systems must be designed to facilitate trust and authority, and that the authority of folksonomies and systems comes from the users' collective interpretations and meaning production.

0.010173016 = product of:
  0.040692065 = sum of:
    0.040692065 = weight(_text_:social in 6666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040692065 = score(doc=6666,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 6666, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6666)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper argues that traditional theories of classification is based in the modem belief in dualism, and that this belief has led to the use of the concept of universe of knowledge as its main component. In this view knowledge organizations are seen as objective and neutral descriptions of an already there universe of knowledge. The tools provided for this task is mainly drawn from logic and are intended to be used independently of the domain for which the knowledge organization is created. The object is to mirror reality as closely as possible. However, the idea of objectivity and neutrality falls with the rise of the postmodern thought. In a postmodern view of the world facts, truth and knowledge is regarded as fabricated and constructed in particular discourse communities. A postmodern theory of knowledge organization therefore regards knowledge organizations as active constructions of a perceived conception of the particular discourse communities in the company, organization or knowledge fields for which the knowledge organization is intended. Therefore the rules, guidelines and standards for knowledge organization becomes of little interest - what becomes much more important is the interpretative processes in knowledge organization and the cultural and social context of which the knowledge organization is a part

0.010173016 = product of:
  0.040692065 = sum of:
    0.040692065 = weight(_text_:social in 4480) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040692065 = score(doc=4480,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.22028469 = fieldWeight in 4480, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4480)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.008138414 = product of:
  0.032553654 = sum of:
    0.032553654 = weight(_text_:social in 2759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032553654 = score(doc=2759,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.17622775 = fieldWeight in 2759, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2759)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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).