Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.016921137 = product of:
  0.033842273 = sum of:
    0.033842273 = product of:
      0.13536909 = sum of:
        0.13536909 = weight(_text_:authors in 818) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13536909 = score(doc=818,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.23755142 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.56985176 = fieldWeight in 818, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=818)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Presents a citation analysis of indexing research in the ISKO Proceedings. Understanding that there are different traditions of research into indexing, we look for evidence of this in the citing and cited authors. Three areas of cited and citing authors surface, after applying Price's elitism analysis, each roughly corresponding to geographic distributions.

0.014478277 = product of:
  0.028956555 = sum of:
    0.028956555 = product of:
      0.05791311 = sum of:
        0.05791311 = weight(_text_:i in 5800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05791311 = score(doc=5800,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1965379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.29466638 = fieldWeight in 5800, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5800)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Shiyali Ramamrita Ranganathan's theory of classification spans a number of works over a number of decades. And while he was devoted to solving many problems in the practice of librarianship, and is known as the father of library science in India (Garfield, 1984), his work in classification revolves around one central concern. His classification research addressed the problems that arose from introducing new ideas into a scheme for classification, while maintaining a meaningful hierarchical and systematically arranged order of classes. This is because hierarchical and systematically arranged classes are the defining characteristic of useful classification. To lose this order is to through the addition of new classes is to introduce confusion, if not chaos, and to move toward a useless classification - or at least one that requires complete revision. In the following chapter, I outline the stages, and the elements of those stages, in Ranganathan's thought on classification from 1926-1972, as well as posthumous work that continues his agenda. And while facets figure prominently in all of these stages; but for Ranganathan to achieve his goal, he must continually add to this central feature of his theory of classification. I will close this chapter with an outline of persistent problems that represent research fronts for the field. Chief among these are what to do about scheme change and the open question about the rigor of information modeling in light of semantic web developments.

0.014332764 = product of:
  0.028665528 = sum of:
    0.028665528 = product of:
      0.057331055 = sum of:
        0.057331055 = weight(_text_:i in 627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057331055 = score(doc=627,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1965379 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.29170483 = fieldWeight in 627, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=627)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper considers the ethical concerns that surface around hierarchy as structure in knowledge organization systems. In order to do this, I consider the relationship between semantics and structure and argue for a separation of the two in design and critique of knowledge organization systems. The paper closes with an argument that agency and intention, as ethical concerns in knowledge organization, lead us to argue for a neutral stance on hierarchy.

0.014119873 = product of:
  0.028239746 = sum of:
    0.028239746 = product of:
      0.05647949 = sum of:
        0.05647949 = weight(_text_:22 in 637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05647949 = score(doc=637,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1824739 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 637, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=637)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2013 11:54:49

0.014119873 = product of:
  0.028239746 = sum of:
    0.028239746 = product of:
      0.05647949 = sum of:
        0.05647949 = weight(_text_:22 in 826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05647949 = score(doc=826,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1824739 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 826, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=826)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

2. 6.2013 18:33:22

0.012354888 = product of:
  0.024709776 = sum of:
    0.024709776 = product of:
      0.049419552 = sum of:
        0.049419552 = weight(_text_:22 in 1426) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049419552 = score(doc=1426,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1824739 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1426, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1426)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.008973788 = product of:
  0.017947575 = sum of:
    0.017947575 = product of:
      0.0717903 = sum of:
        0.0717903 = weight(_text_:authors in 1068) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0717903 = score(doc=1068,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23755142 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.30220953 = fieldWeight in 1068, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1068)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A starting point for contributing to the greater good is to examine and interrogate existing knowledge organization practices that do harm, whether that harm is intentional or accidental, or an inherent and unavoidable evil. As part of the transition movement, the authors propose to inventory the manifestations and implications of the production of suffering by knowledge organization systems through constructing a taxonomy of harm. Theoretical underpinnings guide ontological commitment, as well as the recognition of the problem of harm in knowledge organization systems. The taxonomy of harm will be organized around three main questions: what happens?, who participates?, and who is affected and how? The aim is to heighten awareness of the violence that classifications and naming practices carry, to unearth some of the social conditions and motivations that contribute to and are reinforced by knowledge organization systems, and to advocate for intentional and ethical knowledge organization practices to achieve a minimal level of harm.

0.0074781566 = product of:
  0.014956313 = sum of:
    0.014956313 = product of:
      0.059825253 = sum of:
        0.059825253 = weight(_text_:authors in 5640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.059825253 = score(doc=5640,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23755142 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05210816 = queryNorm
            0.25184128 = fieldWeight in 5640, 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=5640)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Aboutness ranks amongst our field's greatest bugbears. What is a work about? How can this be known? This mirrors debates within the philosophy of language, where the concept of representation has similarly evaded satisfactory definition. This paper proposes that we abandon the strong sense of the word aboutness, which seems to promise some inherent relationship between work and subject, or, in philosophical terms, between word and world. Instead, we seek an etymological reset to the older sense of aboutness as "in the vicinity, nearby; in some place or various places nearby; all over a surface." To distinguish this sense in the context of information studies, we introduce the term episemantics. The authors have each independently applied this term in slightly different contexts and scales (Hauser 2018a; Tennis 2016), and this article presents a unified definition of the term and guidelines for applying it at the scale of both words and works. The resulting weak concept of aboutness is pragmatic, in Star's sense of a focus on consequences over antecedents, while reserving space for the critique and improvement of aboutness determinations within various contexts and research programs. The paper finishes with a discussion of the implication of the concept of episemantics and methodological possibilities it offers for knowledge organization research and practice. We draw inspiration from Melvil Dewey's use of physical aroundness in his first classification system and ask how aroundness might be more effectively operationalized in digital environments.