Search (76 results, page 1 of 4)

  • × author_ss:"Smiraglia, R.P."
  1. Smiraglia, R.P.: Shifting intension in knowledge organization : an editorial (2012) 0.04 
    0.036369212 = sum of:
  0.005581817 = product of:
    0.044654537 = sum of:
      0.044654537 = weight(_text_:authors in 630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044654537 = score(doc=630,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17731223 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.038894374 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 630, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=630)
    0.125 = coord(1/8)
  0.030787393 = sum of:
    0.0044391407 = weight(_text_:e in 630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044391407 = score(doc=630,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055905603 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038894374 = queryNorm
        0.07940422 = fieldWeight in 630, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=630)
    0.026348254 = weight(_text_:22 in 630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026348254 = score(doc=630,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13620147 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038894374 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 630, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=630)
    Abstract
    In the keynote paper for the 12th International ISKO Conference in Mysore I discussed the dynamicity of the domain of knowledge organization from the perspective of ongoing domain analyses. Metaanalysis of a series of studies shows that knowledge organization is a strong, scientific community, with a distinct extension that now embraces the search for interoperability, and with intension that shifts along two continuums, one of which is methodological (or epistemological) and ranges from empirical experimental methods to humanistic narrative methods, while the other is more contextual and ranges from concept theory to applied KOS. These elements seem to remain core in knowledge organization as a domain over time (Smiraglia 2012). Another interesting finding is the degree to which the intension along that theory-application continuum is stretched by papers presented at regional ISKO chapter conferences. Since 2006 it has been the policy of this journal to offer to publish the leading papers from any peer-reviewed regional ISKO conference. The papers are selected by conference organizers and forwarded to Knowledge Organization for publication. By analyzing the papers separately we are able to see both the presence of the domain's core internationally and the constant tug and pull on the intension as authors bring new ideas and new research to regional conferences. This editorial, then, summarizes papers from regional conferences that have appeared in Knowledge Organization in 2011 and 2012.
    Date
    22. 2.2013 11:09:49
    Language
    e
  2. Friedman, A.; Smiraglia, R.P.: Nodes and arcs : concept map, semiotics, and knowledge organization (2013) 0.03 
    0.029095368 = sum of:
  0.0044654533 = product of:
    0.035723627 = sum of:
      0.035723627 = weight(_text_:authors in 770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035723627 = score(doc=770,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17731223 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.038894374 = queryNorm
          0.20147301 = fieldWeight in 770, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=770)
    0.125 = coord(1/8)
  0.024629915 = sum of:
    0.0035513125 = weight(_text_:e in 770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0035513125 = score(doc=770,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055905603 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038894374 = queryNorm
        0.063523374 = fieldWeight in 770, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=770)
    0.021078603 = weight(_text_:22 in 770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021078603 = score(doc=770,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13620147 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038894374 = queryNorm
        0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 770, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=770)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of the research reported here is to improve comprehension of the socially-negotiated identity of concepts in the domain of knowledge organization. Because knowledge organization as a domain has as its focus the order of concepts, both from a theoretical perspective and from an applied perspective, it is important to understand how the domain itself understands the meaning of a concept. Design/methodology/approach - The paper provides an empirical demonstration of how the domain itself understands the meaning of a concept. The paper employs content analysis to demonstrate the ways in which concepts are portrayed in KO concept maps as signs, and they are subjected to evaluative semiotic analysis as a way to understand their meaning. The frame was the entire population of formal proceedings in knowledge organization - all proceedings of the International Society for Knowledge Organization's international conferences (1990-2010) and those of the annual classification workshops of the Special Interest Group for Classification Research of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (SIG/CR). Findings - A total of 344 concept maps were analyzed. There was no discernible chronological pattern. Most concept maps were created by authors who were professors from the USA, Germany, France, or Canada. Roughly half were judged to contain semiotic content. Peirceian semiotics predominated, and tended to convey greater granularity and complexity in conceptual terminology. Nodes could be identified as anchors of conceptual clusters in the domain; the arcs were identifiable as verbal relationship indicators. Saussurian concept maps were more applied than theoretical; Peirceian concept maps had more theoretical content. Originality/value - The paper demonstrates important empirical evidence about the coherence of the domain of knowledge organization. Core values are conveyed across time through the concept maps in this population of conference papers.
    Content
    Vgl. auch den Beitrag: Treude, L.: Das Problem der Konzeptdefinition in der Wissensorganisation: über einen missglückten Versuch der Klärung. In: LIBREAS: Library ideas. no.22, 2013, S.xx-xx.
    Language
    e
  3. Smiraglia, R.P.: On sameness and difference : an editorial (2008) 0.02 
    0.020388093 = sum of:
  0.004994396 = product of:
    0.03995517 = sum of:
      0.03995517 = weight(_text_:asked in 1919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03995517 = score(doc=1919,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.237196 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.0984654 = idf(docFreq=269, maxDocs=44218)
            0.038894374 = queryNorm
          0.16844791 = fieldWeight in 1919, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.0984654 = idf(docFreq=269, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1919)
    0.125 = coord(1/8)
  0.015393697 = sum of:
    0.0022195703 = weight(_text_:e in 1919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0022195703 = score(doc=1919,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.055905603 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038894374 = queryNorm
        0.03970211 = fieldWeight in 1919, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1919)
    0.013174127 = weight(_text_:22 in 1919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013174127 = score(doc=1919,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13620147 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.038894374 = 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)
    Content
    3. A New Perspective: Theme and Variations In musicology there is a factual reality that every sound you hear can be reduced to a sort of calculus that expresses its tonal and metrical relationships. Schenkerian analysis (Forte and Gilbert 1982) is one approach to this. In the end it reveals a singular truth, which is that music (like information) is essentially an ordered accretion of energy. The beauty of this type of analysis is what it reveals when large quantities of music are analyzed-it reveals sets of similarities that might never have been noticed otherwise. The music information retrieval domain has built its technology and its science along these lines. So where does this leave knowledge organization? In the semantic Web and the magical kingdoms that will follow it, it will be necessary to make samenessdifference decisions of a different sort, to provide the ability to make heretofore unimaginable connections. Elsewhere I have asked when a funeral urn is like a ship's log: the answer is when the instantiation set has the same calculus in its scope, which tells us that the two artifacts have approximately equal impact factors along some cultural or social trajectory. These are the sorts of questions knowledge organization can be able to answer if we can move toward a large base of empirical evidence to which similarity measures can be applied and from which new hypotheses can be drawn to direct investigation. Why have these questions not yet been answered? Because they have not yet been posed."
    Date
    12. 6.2008 20:18:22
    Language
    e
  4. Beak, J.; Smiraglia, R.P.: Contours of knowledge : core and granularity in the evolution of the DCMI domain (2014) 0.02 
    0.018472435 = product of:
  0.03694487 = sum of:
    0.03694487 = sum of:
      0.0053269686 = weight(_text_:e in 1415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0053269686 = score(doc=1415,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.055905603 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.038894374 = queryNorm
          0.09528506 = fieldWeight in 1415, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1415)
      0.031617902 = weight(_text_:22 in 1415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031617902 = score(doc=1415,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13620147 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.038894374 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1415, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1415)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Language
    e
    Source
    Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik
  5. Smiraglia, R.P.: Classification interaction demonstrated empirically (2014) 0.02 
    0.018472435 = product of:
  0.03694487 = sum of:
    0.03694487 = sum of:
      0.0053269686 = weight(_text_:e in 1420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0053269686 = score(doc=1420,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.055905603 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.038894374 = queryNorm
          0.09528506 = fieldWeight in 1420, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1420)
      0.031617902 = weight(_text_:22 in 1420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031617902 = score(doc=1420,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13620147 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.038894374 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1420, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1420)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Language
    e
    Source
    Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik
  6. Leazer, G.H.; Smiraglia, R.P.: Bibliographic families in the library catalog : a qualitative analysis and grounded theory (1999) 0.02 
    0.015393697 = product of:
  0.030787393 = sum of:
    0.030787393 = sum of:
      0.0044391407 = weight(_text_:e in 107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0044391407 = score(doc=107,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.055905603 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.038894374 = queryNorm
          0.07940422 = fieldWeight in 107, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=107)
      0.026348254 = weight(_text_:22 in 107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026348254 = score(doc=107,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13620147 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.038894374 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 107, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=107)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
    Language
    e
  7. Smiraglia, R.P.: ISKO 12's bookshelf - evolving intension : an editorial (2013) 0.02 
    0.015393697 = product of:
  0.030787393 = sum of:
    0.030787393 = sum of:
      0.0044391407 = weight(_text_:e in 636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0044391407 = score(doc=636,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.055905603 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.038894374 = queryNorm
          0.07940422 = fieldWeight in 636, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=636)
      0.026348254 = weight(_text_:22 in 636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026348254 = score(doc=636,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13620147 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.038894374 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 636, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=636)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 2.2013 11:43:34
    Language
    e
  8. Graf, A.M.; Smiraglia, R.P.: Race & ethnicity in the Encyclopedia of Milwaukee : a case study in the use of domain analysis (2014) 0.02 
    0.015393697 = product of:
  0.030787393 = sum of:
    0.030787393 = sum of:
      0.0044391407 = weight(_text_:e in 1412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0044391407 = score(doc=1412,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.055905603 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.038894374 = queryNorm
          0.07940422 = fieldWeight in 1412, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1412)
      0.026348254 = weight(_text_:22 in 1412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026348254 = score(doc=1412,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13620147 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.038894374 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1412, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1412)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Language
    e
    Source
    Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik
  9. Smiraglia, R.P.: ¬A research agenda for cataloging : the CCQ Editorial Board responds to the Year of Cataloging Research (2010) 0.01 
    0.014650036 = sum of:
  0.011986551 = product of:
    0.09589241 = sum of:
      0.09589241 = weight(_text_:asked in 4162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09589241 = score(doc=4162,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.237196 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.0984654 = idf(docFreq=269, maxDocs=44218)
            0.038894374 = queryNorm
          0.40427497 = fieldWeight in 4162, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.0984654 = idf(docFreq=269, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4162)
    0.125 = coord(1/8)
  0.0026634843 = product of:
    0.0053269686 = sum of:
      0.0053269686 = weight(_text_:e in 4162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0053269686 = score(doc=4162,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.055905603 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.038894374 = queryNorm
          0.09528506 = fieldWeight in 4162, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4162)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The cataloging and classification community was called to highlight 2010 as "The Year of Cataloging Research," and specifically was challenged to generate research ideas, conduct research, and generally promote the development of new research in cataloging. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly has become the most influential journal of research in cataloging and classification since its inception in 1981. The idea behind the research reported here was to give the CCQ editorial board an opportunity to present its point of view about research for cataloging. A Delphi study was conducted in three stages during the 2009-2010 academic year. Members were asked to define the key terms "cataloging," "evidence," and "research," and to develop a research agenda in cataloging. The results reveal a basic core definition of cataloging perceived as a dynamic, active process at the core of information retrieval. An eight point research agenda emerges that is forward-looking and embraces change, along with top-ranked calls for new empirical evidence about catalogs, cataloging, and catalog users.
    Language
    e
  10. Smiraglia, R.P.: Keywords, indexing, text analysis : an editorial (2013) 0.01 
    0.012208363 = sum of:
  0.009988792 = product of:
    0.07991034 = sum of:
      0.07991034 = weight(_text_:asked in 1390) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07991034 = score(doc=1390,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.237196 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.0984654 = idf(docFreq=269, maxDocs=44218)
            0.038894374 = queryNorm
          0.33689582 = fieldWeight in 1390, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.0984654 = idf(docFreq=269, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1390)
    0.125 = coord(1/8)
  0.0022195703 = product of:
    0.0044391407 = sum of:
      0.0044391407 = weight(_text_:e in 1390) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0044391407 = score(doc=1390,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.055905603 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.038894374 = queryNorm
          0.07940422 = fieldWeight in 1390, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1390)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
    Language
    e
  11. Smiraglia, R.P.: Is FRBR a domain? : domain analysis applied to the literature of the FRBR family of conceptual models (2013) 0.01 
    0.012136143 = sum of:
  0.009472658 = product of:
    0.07578126 = sum of:
      0.07578126 = weight(_text_:authors in 1063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07578126 = score(doc=1063,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17731223 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.038894374 = queryNorm
          0.42738882 = fieldWeight in 1063, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1063)
    0.125 = coord(1/8)
  0.0026634843 = product of:
    0.0053269686 = sum of:
      0.0053269686 = weight(_text_:e in 1063) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0053269686 = score(doc=1063,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.055905603 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.038894374 = queryNorm
          0.09528506 = fieldWeight in 1063, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1063)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Domain analysis helps visualize the semantic intellectual content of a coherent group, or domain. A domain is a group with an ontological base, an underlying teleology, common hypotheses and epistemology, and social semantics. FRBR has spawned a family of conceptual models and much writing. A recent second anthology about the FRBR models raises the question of whether a coherent domain has formed around the FRBR family. Domain analysis is used here to visualize the semantic content of the FRBR family domain and to compare its two main component groups, scholar authors and practitioner authors. Results show a common teleology with some subtle differences surrounding implementation of the FRBR family of models.
    Language
    e
  12. Smiraglia, R.P.: ISKO 10's Bookshelf : an editorial (2008) 0.01 
    0.010113452 = sum of:
  0.007893882 = product of:
    0.063151054 = sum of:
      0.063151054 = weight(_text_:authors in 2333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.063151054 = score(doc=2333,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17731223 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.038894374 = queryNorm
          0.35615736 = fieldWeight in 2333, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2333)
    0.125 = coord(1/8)
  0.0022195703 = product of:
    0.0044391407 = sum of:
      0.0044391407 = weight(_text_:e in 2333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0044391407 = score(doc=2333,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.055905603 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.038894374 = queryNorm
          0.07940422 = fieldWeight in 2333, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2333)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
    Language
    e
  13. Smiraglia, R.P.; Heuvel, C. van den: Classifications and concepts : towards an elementary theory of knowledge interaction (2013) 0.01 
    0.010113452 = sum of:
  0.007893882 = product of:
    0.063151054 = sum of:
      0.063151054 = weight(_text_:authors in 1758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.063151054 = score(doc=1758,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17731223 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.038894374 = queryNorm
          0.35615736 = fieldWeight in 1758, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1758)
    0.125 = coord(1/8)
  0.0022195703 = product of:
    0.0044391407 = sum of:
      0.0044391407 = weight(_text_:e in 1758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0044391407 = score(doc=1758,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.055905603 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.038894374 = queryNorm
          0.07940422 = fieldWeight in 1758, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1758)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
    Language
    e
  14. Smiraglia, R.P.: About knowledge organization : an editorial (2005) 0.01 
    0.0097666895 = sum of:
  0.007991034 = product of:
    0.06392827 = sum of:
      0.06392827 = weight(_text_:asked in 6087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06392827 = score(doc=6087,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.237196 = queryWeight, product of:
            6.0984654 = idf(docFreq=269, maxDocs=44218)
            0.038894374 = queryNorm
          0.26951665 = fieldWeight in 6087, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            6.0984654 = idf(docFreq=269, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6087)
    0.125 = coord(1/8)
  0.0017756562 = product of:
    0.0035513125 = sum of:
      0.0035513125 = weight(_text_:e in 6087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0035513125 = score(doc=6087,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.055905603 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.038894374 = queryNorm
          0.063523374 = fieldWeight in 6087, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6087)
    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.
    Language
    e
  15. Smiraglia, R.P.: ¬The history of "The Work" in the modern catalog (2003) 0.01 
    0.0078013875 = sum of:
  0.005581817 = product of:
    0.044654537 = sum of:
      0.044654537 = weight(_text_:authors in 5631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044654537 = score(doc=5631,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17731223 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.038894374 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 5631, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5631)
    0.125 = coord(1/8)
  0.0022195703 = product of:
    0.0044391407 = sum of:
      0.0044391407 = weight(_text_:e in 5631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0044391407 = score(doc=5631,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.055905603 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.038894374 = queryNorm
          0.07940422 = fieldWeight in 5631, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5631)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    From a historical perspective, one could consider the modern library catalog to be that bibliographical apparatus that stretches at least from Thomas Hyde's catalog for the Bodleian Library at Oxford to the near present. Mai and other recent authors have suggested postmodern approaches to knowledge organization. In these, we realize that there is no single and unique order of knowledge or documents but rather there are many appropriate orders, all of them contextually dependent. Works (oeuvres, opera, Werke, etc.), as are musical works, literary works, works of art, etc., are and always have been key entities for information retrieval. Yet catalogs in the modern era were designed to inventory (first) and retrieve (second) specific documents. From Hyde's catalog for the Bodleian until the late twentieth century, developments are epistemologically pragmatic--reflected in the structure of catalog records, in the rules for main entry headings, and in the rules for filing in card catalogs. After 1980 developments become empirical-reflected in research conducted by Tillett, Yee, Smiraglia, Leazer, Carlyle, and Vellucci. The influence of empiricism on the pragmatic notion of "the work" has led to increased focus on the concept of the work. The challenge for the postmodern online catalog is to fully embrace the concept of "the work," finally to facilitate it as a prime objective for information retrieval.
    Language
    e
  16. Smiraglia, R.P.: ¬The history of "The Work" in the modern catalog (2003) 0.01 
    0.0078013875 = sum of:
  0.005581817 = product of:
    0.044654537 = sum of:
      0.044654537 = weight(_text_:authors in 5652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044654537 = score(doc=5652,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17731223 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.038894374 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 5652, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5652)
    0.125 = coord(1/8)
  0.0022195703 = product of:
    0.0044391407 = sum of:
      0.0044391407 = weight(_text_:e in 5652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0044391407 = score(doc=5652,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.055905603 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.038894374 = queryNorm
          0.07940422 = fieldWeight in 5652, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5652)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    From a historical perspective, one could consider the modern library catalog to be that bibliographical apparatus that stretches at least from Thomas Hyde's catalog for the Bodleian Library at Oxford to the near present. Mai and other recent authors have suggested postmodern approaches to knowledge organization. In these, we realize that there is no single and unique order of knowledge or documents but rather there are many appropriate orders, all of them contextually dependent. Works (oeuvres, opera, Werke, etc.), as are musical works, literary works, works of art, etc., are and always have been key entities for information retrieval. Yet catalogs in the modern era were designed to inventory (first) and retrieve (second) specific documents. From Hyde's catalog for the Bodleian until the late twentieth century, developments are epistemologically pragmatic--reflected in the structure of catalog records, in the rules for main entry headings, and in the rules for filing in card catalogs. After 1980 developments become empirical-reflected in research conducted by Tillett, Yee, Smiraglia, Leazer, Carlyle, and Vellucci. The influence of empiricism on the pragmatic notion of "the work" has led to increased focus on the concept of the work. The challenge for the postmodern online catalog is to fully embrace the concept of "the work," finally to facilitate it as a prime objective for information retrieval.
    Language
    e
  17. Smiraglia, R.P.: Authority control of works: cataloging's chimera? (2004) 0.01 
    0.0078013875 = sum of:
  0.005581817 = product of:
    0.044654537 = sum of:
      0.044654537 = weight(_text_:authors in 5678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044654537 = score(doc=5678,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17731223 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.038894374 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 5678, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5678)
    0.125 = coord(1/8)
  0.0022195703 = product of:
    0.0044391407 = sum of:
      0.0044391407 = weight(_text_:e in 5678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0044391407 = score(doc=5678,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.055905603 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.038894374 = queryNorm
          0.07940422 = fieldWeight in 5678, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5678)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Explicit authority control of works is essentially non-existent. Our catalogs are built on a principle of controlling headings, and primarily headings for names of authors. Our syndetic structure creates a spider's web of networked relationships among forms of headings, but it ends there, despite the potential richness of depth among bibliographic entities. Effective authority control of works could yield richness in the catalog that would enhance retrieval capabilities. Works are considered to constitute the intellectual content of informative artifacts that may be collected and ordered for retrieval. In a 1992 study the author examined a random sample of works drawn from the catalog of the Georgetown University Library. For each progenitor work, an instantiation network (also referred to as a bibliographic family) was constituted. A detailed analysis of the linkages that would be required for authority control of these networks is reviewed here. A new study is also presented, in which Library of Congress authority records for the works in this sample are sought and analyzed. Results demonstrate a near total lack of control, with only 5.6% of works for which authority records were found. From a sample of 410 works, of which nearly half have instantiation networks, only 23 works could be said to have implicit authority control. However, many instantiation networks are made up of successive derivations that can be implicitly linked through collocation. The difficult work of explicitly linking instantiations comes with title changes, translations, and containing relations. The empirical evidence in the present study suggests that explicit control of expressions will provide the best control over instantiation networks because it is instantiations such as translations, abridgments, and adaptations that require explicit linking.
    Language
    e
  18. Smiraglia, R.P.; Cai, X.: Tracking the evolution of clustering, machine learning, automatic indexing and automatic classification in knowledge organization (2017) 0.01 
    0.0078013875 = sum of:
  0.005581817 = product of:
    0.044654537 = sum of:
      0.044654537 = weight(_text_:authors in 3627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044654537 = score(doc=3627,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17731223 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.038894374 = queryNorm
          0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 3627, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3627)
    0.125 = coord(1/8)
  0.0022195703 = product of:
    0.0044391407 = sum of:
      0.0044391407 = weight(_text_:e in 3627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0044391407 = score(doc=3627,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.055905603 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.038894374 = queryNorm
          0.07940422 = fieldWeight in 3627, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3627)
    0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    A very important extension of the traditional domain of knowledge organization (KO) arises from attempts to incorporate techniques devised in the computer science domain for automatic concept extraction and for grouping, categorizing, clustering and otherwise organizing knowledge using mechanical means. Four specific terms have emerged to identify the most prevalent techniques: machine learning, clustering, automatic indexing, and automatic classification. Our study presents three domain analytical case analyses in search of answers. The first case relies on citations located using the ISKO-supported "Knowledge Organization Bibliography." The second case relies on works in both Web of Science and SCOPUS. Case three applies co-word analysis and citation analysis to the contents of the papers in the present special issue. We observe scholars involved in "clustering" and "automatic classification" who share common thematic emphases. But we have found no coherence, no common activity and no social semantics. We have not found a research front, or a common teleology within the KO domain. We also have found a lively group of authors who have succeeded in submitting papers to this special issue, and their work quite interestingly aligns with the case studies we report. There is an emphasis on KO for information retrieval; there is much work on clustering (which involves conceptual points within texts) and automatic classification (which involves semantic groupings at the meta-document level).
    Language
    e
  19. Smiraglia, R.P.: ¬A brief introduction to facets in knowledge organization (2017) 0.00 
    0.0026634843 = product of:
  0.0053269686 = sum of:
    0.0053269686 = product of:
      0.010653937 = sum of:
        0.010653937 = weight(_text_:e in 1131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010653937 = score(doc=1131,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055905603 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038894374 = queryNorm
            0.19057012 = fieldWeight in 1131, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1131)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Language
    e
  20. Smiraglia, R.P.: New promise for the universal control of recorded knowledge (1990) 0.00 
    0.0026634843 = product of:
  0.0053269686 = sum of:
    0.0053269686 = product of:
      0.010653937 = sum of:
        0.010653937 = weight(_text_:e in 3573) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010653937 = score(doc=3573,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.055905603 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.038894374 = queryNorm
            0.19057012 = fieldWeight in 3573, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3573)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Language
    e

Authors

Years

Types

  • a 72
  • m 4
  • el 2
  • More… Less…

Themes