Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

Smiraglia, R.P.: On sameness and difference : an editorial (2008) 0.04
```
0.03747881 = product of:
  0.07495762 = sum of:
    0.07495762 = sum of:
      0.05480743 = weight(_text_:light in 1919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05480743 = score(doc=1919,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.34357315 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059490006 = queryNorm
          0.15952186 = fieldWeight in 1919, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.7753086 = idf(docFreq=372, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1919)
      0.020150186 = weight(_text_:22 in 1919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020150186 = score(doc=1919,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20832387 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.059490006 = queryNorm
          0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 1919, 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=1919)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Content

"1. What is? Many of us equate the principle activity of knowledge organization with that of ontology, which at its essence is the revelation of the structure of a domain. Among the essential choices that must be made in the construction of ontology are those involving "IsA" relationships. "What is a" is the primary question that defines what belongs inside a set and what, therefore, does not. Employing Dahlberg's concept-theoretic is one approach to defining the elements that belong in a set, although there are many other approaches as well. Whatever method is used, once a set is constituted its members will be considered to be like each other in some way, in other words, they are thought to be the same in some manner, or to some degree. Which leads naturally to the question of how alike must two entities be to be declared the same? Or its correlate, how dissimilar must they be to be declared different? Pondering this question led me to think about musical works that are of the genre "variations on a theme by X." In such works a composer uses a musical mnemonic-a melody usually-to draw listeners into the aural experience, and then, subsequent iterations all contain this original mnemonic but surround it or manipulate it in various ways. The result is always iterative but never boring because each iteration is subtly (or not so subtly) different from the last. And the technique allows the character of the original to be explored fully as well as for it to be reinterpreted by the current composer. In the end it is not so unlike, although a lot more interesting than, multiple citations by an author of another's works- say, like the way each time I cite Patrick Wilson it comes out a little differently. Same but different. Sameness and difference turn out to be essential philosophical positions. Many of the philosophical points of view brought to bear on knowledge organization suggest one or more points of view about this essential question. Semiotics (for example) suggests that signs are always being interpreted anew, phenomenology suggests entities might appear differently as a matter of their individual perception. All points of view are useful because they all shed light on formerly dark corners of the essential questions in knowledge organization.

Date

12. 6.2008 20:18:22
Smiraglia, R.P.: Empiricism as the basis for metadata categorisation : expanding the case for instantiation with archival documents (2006) 0.02
```
0.02166277 = product of:
  0.04332554 = sum of:
    0.04332554 = product of:
      0.12997662 = sum of:
        0.12997662 = weight(_text_:objects in 261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12997662 = score(doc=261,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3161936 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059490006 = queryNorm
            0.41106653 = fieldWeight in 261, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=261)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

Metadata schemas tend to be rationally ordered instruments for the categorization of data about information objects. Instantiation has been demonstrated to be a universal phenomenon. Empirical analysis, both positivist and qualitative, has contributed to typologies of the properties of instantiation. This yields a naïve knowledge organization schema of instantiation. Bibliographic, museum, and archival analyses are compared to demonstrate the value of empirical derivation of categories. In this instance categories, once derived, are demonstrated to represent properties yielding typologies. The empirical generation of categories for knowledge organization is demonstrated.
Smiraglia, R.P.: About knowledge organization : an editorial (2005) 0.01
```
0.012378725 = product of:
  0.02475745 = sum of:
    0.02475745 = product of:
      0.07427235 = sum of:
        0.07427235 = weight(_text_:objects in 6087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07427235 = score(doc=6087,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.3161936 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.059490006 = queryNorm
            0.23489517 = fieldWeight in 6087, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.315071 = idf(docFreq=590, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6087)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
```
Abstract

What exactly is "knowledge organization?" It turns out there are many different definitions and not all scholars within the domain agree. The Consulting Editors of this journal have asked the ISKO Scientific Advisory Council to consider a concise definition of knowledge organization, and especially to consider its relationship with the more recently evolved term, "knowledge management," as well. The debate will likely be lengthy; I invite readers to watch these pages for developments as they become available. Of course, ISKO members have a common sensibility about the meaning of knowledge organization. Our Society's organizing charter says that "it is the aim of the Society to promote research, development and application of all methods for the organization of knowledge in general or of particular fields by integrating especially the conceptual approaches of classification research and artificial intelligence." The charter also specifies that "The Society stresses philosophicological, psychological and semantic approaches for a conceptual order of objects." Our journal's statement of scope and aims suggests we are interested in "questions of the adequate structuring and construction of ordering systems and on the problems of their use." Our aim as a journal is to provide "a forum for all those interested in the organization of knowledge on a universal or domain-specific scale, using concept-analytical or concept-synthetical approaches, as well as quantitative and qualitative methodologies." What we can gather from these statements is that the core of our domain is the ordering of what is known, that that ordering might be accomplished in various ways but that concepts are critical lynchpins, and that a wide variety of scientific approaches fall within our embrace. Still, as all scholars know, a definition of a tern may not include the term being defined; ergo, we cannot define knowledge organization as the organization of knowledge [!] - consequently we have charged ISKO to consider whether The Society can provide core definitions.