Search (76 results, page 3 of 4)

0.0013313505 = product of:
  0.007322428 = sum of:
    0.0052392064 = weight(_text_:a in 176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0052392064 = score(doc=176,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 176, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=176)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=176,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 176, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=176)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

Metadata schemes target resources as information-packages, without attention to the distinction between content and carrier. Most schema are derived without empirical understanding of the concepts that need to be represented, the ways in which terms representing the central concepts might best be derived, and how metadata descriptions will be used for retrieval. Research is required to resolve this dilemma, and much research will be required if the plethora of schemes that already exist are to be made efficacious for resource description and retrieval. Here I report the results of a preliminary study, which was designed to see whether the bibliographic concept of "the work" could be of any relevance among artifacts held by a museum. I extend the "works metaphor" from the bibliographic to the artifactual domain, by altering the terms of the definition slightly, thus: 1) instantiation is understood as content genealogy. Case studies of Etruscan artifacts from the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology are used to demonstrate the inherence of the work in non-documentary artifacts.

Content

Beitrag eines Themenheftes "Metadata: a cataloger's primer"

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 40(2005) nos.3/4, S.135-151

Type

a

0.0013313505 = product of:
  0.007322428 = sum of:
    0.0052392064 = weight(_text_:a in 3513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0052392064 = score(doc=3513,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 3513, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3513)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 3513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=3513,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 3513, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3513)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

Discoveries in high energy physics have led to new understanding about the nature of that which exists. We use the metaphor of the particle collider to accumulate components of a theory of knowledge that underlies the science of knowledge organization. We outline the concepts of a knowledge universe, the central role of concepts, and the intertwining roles of works, instantiations and documents. This thought experiment provides a different epistemological reading of "knowledge" by demonstrating a semantics that is based on structure and on related forces between components, rather than on content, so as to enable the development of mechanisms for linking related knowledge entities with so-far undiscovered similarities.

Pages

S.50-56

Type

a

0.0013313505 = product of:
  0.007322428 = sum of:
    0.0052392064 = weight(_text_:a in 3172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0052392064 = score(doc=3172,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 3172, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3172)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 3172) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=3172,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 3172, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3172)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

Knowledge organization systems, including classifications, can be evaluated and explained by reference to what is called concept theory, attributing to concepts atomic status as basic elements. There are two ways to test knowledge organization systems; both are means of measuring the efficacy of concept theory in specific situations. These are: 1) analyze how well a system represents its warranted concepts; and, 2) analyze how well individual knowledge organization systems are populated with classified target objects. This paper is an attempt to bring together examples from ongoing research to demonstrate the use of empirical approaches to understanding the evolution of knowledge across time as it is represented in knowledge organization systems. The potential for using knowledge organization as a roadmap for the world of knowledge is revealed in the capability of knowledge organization systems to serve as roadmaps and data-mining tools for the knowledge landscape.

Content

Beitrag in: Special Issue: "A Festschrift for Hope A. Olson," Guest Editor Thomas Walker.

Source

Knowledge organization. 43(2016) no.5, S.351-357

Type

a

0.0013197502 = product of:
  0.007258626 = sum of:
    0.0055226083 = weight(_text_:a in 3663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0055226083 = score(doc=3663,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 3663, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3663)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 3663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=3663,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 3663, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3663)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

To contribute to the development of a sophisticated control of bibliographic works research must be build on the growing understanding of the nature of the work and the constitution of bibliographic families. The present study was designed to address the following in the context of a global bibliographic database: OCLC's WorldCat: the proportion of works that are members of bibliographic families; the size of each family; bibliographic characteristics that can be associated with the existence or extent of derivative bibliographic relationships; the frequency with which each type of relationship appears; and the complexity of bibliographic families. A sample of bibliographic families was constructed. Results indicate that a core of works of similar character constitute the bibliographic population of American academic and research libraries (OCLC members). It seems that the canon of derivative works is greater in the academic sphere than in the bibliographic universe represented by OCLC at large. The size of a bibliographic family seems to be related to its popularity or its canonicity. Discipline, form, and genre all fail to demonstrate any influence on derivation of works. Further study of specific segments of the bibliographic universe, for instance the literature of particular disciplines, is clearly called for. The purpose of this research is to contribute to the development of a sophisticated control of bibliographic works and families. In particular, this research is designed to build on our growing understanding of the nature of the work and the constitution of bibliographic families

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 50(1999) no.6, S.493-504

Type

a

0.0013197502 = product of:
  0.007258626 = sum of:
    0.0055226083 = weight(_text_:a in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0055226083 = score(doc=2509,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 2509, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2509)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=2509,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 2509, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2509)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Content

Perception is a crucial element in the viability of any knowledge organization system because it acts as a filter that provides contextual information about phenomena, including potential categorical membership. Perception is moderated culturally, but "social" systems exercise little or no cultural conformity. "Every day classification" is rife throughout human experience; but classification arises as a system of formal constraints that embody cultural assumptions about the categories that are the products of human cognition. Noesis is a perceptual component of Husserl's phenomenological approach to human experience. How we perceive a thing is filtered by our experiential feelings about it. The purpose of this research is to increase understanding of the role of cognition in every day classification by developing a fuller profile of perception. Photographs of mailboxes (a mundane, every-day example) from different locales are compared to demonstrate the noetic process. Tag clouds are analyzed to demonstrate the kinds of perceptual differences that suggest different user perceptions among those contributing tags.

Pages

S.249-255

Type

a

0.0013197502 = product of:
  0.007258626 = sum of:
    0.0055226083 = weight(_text_:a in 5312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0055226083 = score(doc=5312,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 5312, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5312)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 5312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=5312,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 5312, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5312)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

A work is a deliberately created informing entity intended for communication. A work consists of abstract intellectual content that is distinct from any object that is its carrier. In library and information science, the importance of the work lies squarely with the problem of information retrieval. Works are mentefacts-intellectual (or mental) constructs that serve as artifacts of the cultures in which they arise. The meaning of a work is abstract at every level, from its creator's conception of it, to its reception and inherence by its consumers. Works are a kind of informing object and are subject to the phenomenon of instantiation, or realization over time. Research has indicated a base typology of instantiation. The problem for information retrieval is to simultaneously collocate and disambiguate large sets of instantiations. Cataloging and bibliographc tradition stipulate an alphabetico-classed arrangement of works based on an authorship principle. FRBR provided an entity-relationship schema for enhanced control of works in future catalogs, which has been incorporated into RDA. FRBRoo provides an empirically more precise model of work entities as informing objects and a schema for their representation in knowledge organization systems.

Source

Knowledge organization. 46(2019) no.4, S.308-319

Type

a

0.0012548991 = product of:
  0.0069019445 = sum of:
    0.0051659266 = weight(_text_:a in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0051659266 = score(doc=789,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 789, 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=789)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=789,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 789, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=789)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

Cataloging is at its most interesting when it is comprehended as part of a larger, meaningful, objective. Resource description is a complex task; but the essence of librarianship is curatorship of a collection, and that sense of curatorial responsibility is one of the things that makes resource description into cataloging-that is, professional responsibility is the difference between the task of transcription and the satisfaction of professional decisions well-made. Part of the essential difference is comprehension of the cultural milieu from which specific resources arise, and the modes of scholarship that might be used to nudge them to reveal their secrets for the advancement of knowledge. In this paper I describe a course designed to lend excitement and professional judgment to the education of future catalogers and collection managers by conveying the notion that all documents are, in fact, cultural artifacts. Part of a knowledge-sensitive curriculum for knowledge organization, the purpose of this course is to go beyond the concept of documents as mere packets of information to demonstrate that each is a product of its time and circumstances. Bibliographic skill leads to greater comfort with the intellectual and cultural forces that impel the creation of documents. Students become comfortable with the curatorial side of cataloging - the placement of each document in its cultural milieu as the goal of resource description, rather than the act of description itself.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 45(2008) no.3, S.25-37

Type

a

0.0012548991 = product of:
  0.0069019445 = sum of:
    0.0051659266 = weight(_text_:a in 1758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0051659266 = score(doc=1758,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 1758, 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=1758)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 1758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=1758,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 1758, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1758)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper seeks to outline the central role of concepts in the knowledge universe, and the intertwining roles of works, instantiations, and documents. In particular the authors are interested in ontological and epistemological aspects of concepts and in the question to which extent there is a need for natural languages to link concepts to create meaningful patterns. Design/methodology/approach - The authors describe the quest for the smallest elements of knowledge from a historical perspective. They focus on the metaphor of the universe of knowledge and its impact on classification and retrieval of concepts. They outline the major components of an elementary theory of knowledge interaction. Findings - The paper outlines the major components of an elementary theory of knowledge interaction that is based on the structure of knowledge rather than on the content of documents, in which semantics becomes not a matter of synonymous concepts, but rather of coordinating knowledge structures. The evidence is derived from existing empirical research. Originality/value - The paper shifts the bases for knowledge organization from a search for a universal order to an understanding of a universal structure within which many context-dependent orders are possible.

Source

Journal of documentation. 69(2013) no.3, S.360-383

Type

a

0.001240201 = product of:
  0.0068211053 = sum of:
    0.0043660053 = weight(_text_:a in 2333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0043660053 = score(doc=2333,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 2333, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2333)
    0.0024550997 = weight(_text_:s in 2333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024550997 = score(doc=2333,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.08494043 = fieldWeight in 2333, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2333)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

The 10th International ISKO Conference is now history, and it was a dynamic bit of history at that. Knowledge organization (the domain) is lively and engaged and engaging, and all of us who work in the domain are in a good spot to benefit from the new trajectories provided by the scholars who brought their research forward this year. As is our custom in this journal, I will leave it to the Classification editor to prepare a full report on the conference. But the Proceedings volume (Arsenault and Tennis 2008), as usual, is a rich resource for analysis of the domain at this particular moment in time. By studying the contents, and in particular by applying bibliometric techniques, we can gain useful insight into the direction of the evolution of knowledge organization. Hjørland (2002) includes bibliometric techniques in his list of eleven approaches to domain analysis because, as he says (p. 436), "it is empirical and based on detailed analysis of connections between individual documents." With reference (and due deference) to White's (2003) analysis of authors as citers, I hereby present this brief analysis of what one might find on the bookshelves of this year's ISKO authors.

Source

Knowledge organization. 35(2008) no.4, S.187-191

Type

a

0.001240201 = product of:
  0.0068211053 = sum of:
    0.0043660053 = weight(_text_:a in 1390) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0043660053 = score(doc=1390,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 1390, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1390)
    0.0024550997 = weight(_text_:s in 1390) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024550997 = score(doc=1390,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.08494043 = fieldWeight in 1390, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1390)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

Recently I was asked in earnest why KO doesn't have keywords. To which my reply was to LOL. Really-I laughed, out loud, and then I said "but it does, in every line!" I decided to undertake a little editorial experiment by using the contents of the last two issues of Knowledge Organization - Volume 40 (2013) number 1 contained an editorial, 4 peer-reviewed articles, a book review, a classification issues report, and two substantive letters to the editor. Volume 40 (2013) number 2 contained 5 peer-reviewed articles, some ISKO news, and a bibliographic essay book review; unfortunately at the time this was written number 2 had not been indexed by either service. I decided to compare keywords drawn from Thompson Reuters' Web of ScienceT and EBSCOHost's Library and Information Science and Technology Abstracts with Full Text (LISTA) to the actual keywords pulled from the texts. Full texts were uploaded to Voyeur from Hermeneutica.ca -The Rhetoric of Text Analysis (http://hermeneuti.ca/voyeur/) to derive most frequently used terms (applying an English language stoplist). Table 1 contains those comparative results.

Footnote

Vgl. auch: Knowledge organization. 42(2015) no.1, S.3-7.

Source

Knowledge organization. 40(2013) no.3, S.155-159

Type

a

0.0012307836 = product of:
  0.0067693098 = sum of:
    0.0046860883 = weight(_text_:a in 1761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0046860883 = score(doc=1761,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 1761, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1761)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 1761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=1761,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 1761, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1761)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

For a long time music librarians have grappled with the problem of cataloguing music scores along with physical recordings, including videorecordings of musical performances, in such a way as to collocate als physical forms in an intelligible order. The critical problems are, how to identify the properties of musical bibliographic entities and then how to control each property in the bibliographic universe and in each of the subsets of that universe, such as the library OPAC. Examines the concept of the 'musical work' as it has been decribed by bibliographers, cataloguers and scholars of bibliographic control. Concludes that there is ample evidence that equality exists among the representations of a musical work regardless of their physical formats. An understanding of the concept of the musical work should obviate the need to reconsider forms of access under current cataloguing practice and lead the way to the next generation of bibliographic control for musical works

Source

Notes. 54(1998) no.3, S.649-666

Type

a

0.0012307836 = product of:
  0.0067693098 = sum of:
    0.0046860883 = weight(_text_:a in 1119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0046860883 = score(doc=1119,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 1119, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1119)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 1119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=1119,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 1119, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1119)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

Works are key entities in the universe of recorded knowledge. Works are those deliberate creations (known variously as opera, oeuvres, Werke, etc.) that constitute individual sets of created conceptions that stand as the formal records of knowledge. In the information retrieval domain, the work as opposed to the document, has only recently received focused attention. In this paper, the definition of the work as an entity for information retrieval is examined. A taxonomic definition (that is, a definition built around a taxonomy) is presented. An epistemological perspective aids in understanding the components of the taxonomic definition. Works, thus defined as entities for information retrieval, are seen to constitute sets of varying instantiations of abstract creations. These variant instantiations must be explicitly identified in future systems for documentary information retrieval. An expanded perception of works, such as that presented in this paper, helps us understand the variety of ways in which mechanisms for their control and retrieval might better be shaped in future.

Source

Knowledge organization. 28(2001) no.4, S.192-202

Type

a

0.001185225 = product of:
  0.006518737 = sum of:
    0.004782719 = weight(_text_:a in 3043) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004782719 = score(doc=3043,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 3043, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3043)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 3043) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=3043,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 3043, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3043)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

A major problem for bibliographic retrieval is an absence of explicit linkages to guide users among manifestations of a work. The purpose of this research was to enhance the power of bibliographic retrieval systems by providing contextual information about the derivative bibliographic relationship. Descriptive survey method was employed. A sample of 411 works from the Georgetown University on-line catalog was drawn. 49.9% of works were derivative. Age of a progenitor work is the characteristic most strongly associated with derivation; language and country of origin are indifferent predictors. Popularity of works might contribute to the phenomenon of derivation. The mean size of bibliographic families of derivative works was 8.44 members. The majority of bibliographic families had successive derivations, large groups of bibliographic families had translations and simultaneous editions; few had extractions, amplifications, or performances; none had adaptations. Successive derivations are the most commonly found members of bibliographic families, and are associated with most other types of derivation within bibliographic families. The bibliographic data required for explicit control of works might easily be compiled from existing records. The development of bibliographic retrieval systems in the network environment could play a dramatic role in improving retrieval of works

Pages

S.167-183

Type

a

0.001185225 = product of:
  0.006518737 = sum of:
    0.004782719 = weight(_text_:a in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004782719 = score(doc=260,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 260, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=260)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=260,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 260, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=260)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

Studying works allows us to see empirically the problem of instantiation of works, both at large and in the catalog. The linkage of relationships among works is a critical goal for information retrieval because the ability to comprehend and select a specific instantiation of a work is crucial for the advancement of scholarship. Hence, the present study examines the instantiation of works among a set of entities known to be popular-best selling books of the 20th century. A sample of best selling works (fiction and non-fiction) from 1900-1999 was constructed. For each work in the sample, all bibliographic records were identified in both OCLC and RLIN as well as instantiations on the World Wide Web. All but one work in the sample exists in multiple instantiations; many have large networks; and complex networks of instantiations have begun to appear in full text on the Web. The results of this study demonstrate the importance of continuing to gather statistical data about works. Solutions devised for the catalog will need to be modified for use in the chaotic environment of the World Wide Web and its successors.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 44(2007) nos.3/4, S.179-195

Type

a

0.001185225 = product of:
  0.006518737 = sum of:
    0.004782719 = weight(_text_:a in 811) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004782719 = score(doc=811,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 811, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=811)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 811) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=811,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 811, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=811)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

We understand "theory" to be a system of testable explanatory statements derived from research. In knowledge organization, the generation of theory has moved from an epistemic stance of pragmatism (based on observation of the construction of retrieval tools), to empiricism (based on the results of empirical research). In the nineteenth century, Panizzi (1841), Cutter (1876), and Dewey (1876), developed very pragmatic tools (i.e., catalogs and classifications), explaining as they did so the principles by which their tools were constructed. By 1950, key papers at a University of Chicago Graduate Library School conference on "Bibliographic Organization" recorded the role of bibliographic organization in civilization (Clapp, 1950) and deemed classification the basis of bibliographic organization (Shera, 1950). In 1961, the International Conference on Cataloguing Principles in Paris brought together key thinkers on the design of catalogs. Wilson (1968) expounded a system for bibliographic apparatus, and provided the framework for empirical theoretical development. In 2000, Svenonius asserted that knowledge organization is accomplished through a bibliographic language (or, more properly through a complex set of bibliographic languages), with semantics, syntax, pragmatics, and rules to govern their implementation. Logical positivism notwithstanding, rationalist and historicist stances have begun to come to the fore of late through the promulgation of qualitative methods, most notably those employed in classification, user-interface design, and bibliometric research.

Source

Library trends. 50(2002) no.3, S.330-349

Type

a

0.001185225 = product of:
  0.006518737 = sum of:
    0.004782719 = weight(_text_:a in 2099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004782719 = score(doc=2099,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 2099, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2099)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 2099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=2099,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 2099, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2099)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

In KO volume 40 number 3 (2013) I included an editorial about keywords-both about the absence prior to that date of designated keywords in articles in Knowledge Organization, and about the misuse of the idea by some other journal publications (Smiraglia 2013). At the time I was chagrined to discover how little correlation there was across the formal indexing of a small set of papers from our journal, and especially to see how little correspondence there was between actual keywords appearing in the published texts, and any of the indexing supplied by either Web of Science or LISTA (Thomson Reuters' Web of ScienceT (WoS) and EBSCOHost's Library and Information Science and Technology Abstracts with Full Text (LISTA). The idea of a keyword arose in the early days of automated indexing, when it was discovered that using terms that actually occurred in full texts (or, in the earliest days, in titles and abstracts) as search "keys," usually in Boolean combinations, provided fairly precise recall in small, contextually confined text corpora. A recent Wikipedia entry (Keywords 2015) embues keywords with properties of structural reasoning, but notes that they are "key" among the most frequently occurring terms in a text corpus. The jury is still out on whether keyword retrieval is better than indexing with subject headings, but in general, keyword searches in large, unstructured text corpora (which is what we have today) are imprecise and result in large recall sets with many irrelevant hits (see the recent analysis by Gross, Taylor and Joudrey (2014). Thus it seems inadvisable to me, as editor, especially of a journal on knowledge organization, to facilitate imprecise indexing of our journal's content.

Source

Knowledge organization. 42(2015) no.1, S.3-7

Type

a

0.0011506155 = product of:
  0.0063283853 = sum of:
    0.004939571 = weight(_text_:a in 6087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004939571 = score(doc=6087,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.16114321 = fieldWeight in 6087, 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=6087)
    0.0013888142 = weight(_text_:s in 6087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0013888142 = score(doc=6087,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.048049565 = fieldWeight in 6087, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6087)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

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.

Source

Knowledge organization. 32(2005) no.4, S.139-140

Type

a

0.001144773 = product of:
  0.006296251 = sum of:
    0.003865826 = weight(_text_:a in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003865826 = score(doc=343,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
    0.0024304248 = weight(_text_:s in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024304248 = score(doc=343,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

Bibliographic control does not differ in substance from one type of material to another. Therefore it is not possible to separate the bibliographic control of music materials entirely from the larger domain of bibliographic control activity. The literature of music librarianship is examined for relevant theoretical explanations. Specific problems of description and access are used to show that, in general, the requirements for bibliographic control of music fit neatly into the theoretical structure for all bibliographic control. The primary purpose of descriptive cataloging of musical objects is to identify and differentiate among objects in a library collection. Where the concept of responsibility is relevant, access is provided through the names of composers or performers. Systematic access is provided through co-equal facets: medium, manifestation, and form.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 5(1985) no.3, S.1-16

Type

a

0.001144773 = product of:
  0.006296251 = sum of:
    0.003865826 = weight(_text_:a in 5729) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003865826 = score(doc=5729,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.12611452 = fieldWeight in 5729, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5729)
    0.0024304248 = weight(_text_:s in 5729) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024304248 = score(doc=5729,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 5729, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5729)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

The referencing habits of scholars, having abandoned physical bibliography for harvesting of digital resources, are in crisis, endangering the bibliographical infrastructure supporting the domain of knowledge organization. Research must be carefully managed and its circumstances controlled. Bibliographical replicability is one important part of the social role of scholarship. References in Knowledge Organization volume 45 (2018) were compiled and analyzed to help visualize the state of referencing in the KO domain. The dependence of science on the ability to replicate is even more critical in a global distributed digital environment. There is great richness in KO that make it even more critical that our scholarly community tend to the relationship between bibliographical verity and the very replicability that is allowing the field to grow theoretically over time.

Source

Knowledge organization. 47(2020) no.1, S.4-12

Type

a

0.0011166352 = product of:
  0.006141493 = sum of:
    0.0040582716 = weight(_text_:a in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0040582716 = score(doc=2648,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 2648, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2648)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 2648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=2648,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 2648, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2648)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

A historic development from the mid-20th century has promise for utility in the global organization of knowledge in the 20 century and beyond. Essential concepts of knowledge organization such as the origin of domain- and ecology-specific ontologies are explored, and insight into classification warrant is offered. The Sachs Classification as it now exists and the Worldmark Encyclopedia from which it evolved are described. The continuing evolution of knowledge organizations based an the methodology of the Sachs Classification is demonstrated. Promise for enhanced knowledge management, and for management of electronic resources is demonstrated. The Sachs Classification can be viewed as a methodology for potentially powerful knowledge management through the development of domain- and ecology-specific ontologies, and its methodology is demonstrated as applicable to new and evolving knowledge domains.

Pages

S.167-172

Type

a