Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.003930328 = product of:
  0.007860656 = sum of:
    0.007860656 = product of:
      0.015721312 = sum of:
        0.015721312 = weight(_text_:a in 5544) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015721312 = score(doc=5544,freq=30.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.296039 = fieldWeight in 5544, product of:
              5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
                30.0 = termFreq=30.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5544)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper is a theoretical analysis of the cognitive free-fall metaphor, used within the cognitive view, as a model for explaining the communication process between a generator and a receiver of a message. Its aim is to demonstrate that the idea of a cognitive free fall taking place within this communication process leads to apparent theoretical paradoxes, partly fostered by unclear definitions of key information-science concepts-namely, tokens, signs, information, and knowledge and their interrelatedness-and a naïve theoretical framework. The paper promotes a semiotically inspired model of communication that demonstrates that what takes place in communication is not a cognitive free fall, but rather a fall from a pragmatic level of knowing or knowledge to a level of representation or information. The paper further argues that the communication process more ideally can be expressed as a complex interrelation of emotion, information, and cognition.

Type

a

0.0029000505 = product of:
  0.005800101 = sum of:
    0.005800101 = product of:
      0.011600202 = sum of:
        0.011600202 = weight(_text_:a in 3535) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011600202 = score(doc=3535,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 3535, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3535)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The present paper presents a philosophical approach to knowledge organization, proposing the pragmatic doctrine of C.S. Peirce as basic analytical framework for knowledge domains. The theoretical framework discussed is related to the qualitative brauch of knowledge organization theory 1.e. within scope of Hjoerland's domain analytical view (Hjoerland and Albrechtsen 1995; Hjoerland 2002; Hjoerland 2004), and promote a general framework for analyzing domain knowledge and concepts. However, the concept of knowledge organization can be viewed in at least two perspectives, one that defines knowledge organization as an activity performed by a human actor e.g. an information specialist, and secondly a view that has the perspective of the inherent self-organizing structure of a knowledge domain the latter being investigated in the paper.

Type

a

0.0023435948 = product of:
  0.0046871896 = sum of:
    0.0046871896 = product of:
      0.009374379 = sum of:
        0.009374379 = weight(_text_:a in 170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009374379 = score(doc=170,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 170, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=170)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper present an alternative approach to knowledge organization based on semiotic reasoning. The semantic distance between domain specific terminology and KOS is analyzed by means of their different sign systems. It is argued that a faceted approach may provide the means needed to minimize the gap between knowledge domains and KOS.

Source

Knowledge organization for a global learning society: Proceedings of the 9th International ISKO Conference, 4-7 July 2006, Vienna, Austria. Hrsg.: G. Budin, C. Swertz u. K. Mitgutsch

Type

a

0.0023435948 = product of:
  0.0046871896 = sum of:
    0.0046871896 = product of:
      0.009374379 = sum of:
        0.009374379 = weight(_text_:a in 1064) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009374379 = score(doc=1064,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 1064, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1064)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The organization of information and the process of seeking information are fundamental activities, and thus fields of study, related to library and information science (LIS). Both endeavors are pragmatic in the sense that the ideas of information seeking behavior and the process of organizing information relates to some ideas of how users tend to behave when information is needed in order to fulfill a task of some kind. An important difference is, however, that information systems are primarily driven by principles of semantic structure, whereas users are driven by genuine information needs. Knowledge organization (KO), which is considered a subfield within LIS, has a particular focus on the organization of semantic units, and their relations (Hjørland 2008; Hodge 2000; Thellefsen 2010), however, it is our impression that the users information need, even though acknowledged, often is neglected or only mentioned en passant. The concept of information need is a core concept in LIS, and is, in particular, a core concept within the subfield of information retrieval (IR) that describes the state of uncertainty or anomalous knowledge state that precedes a user's information seeking behavior. Information need is, however, an intricate concept, and is only addressed in the LIS literature as some kind of elusive cognitive state. One may ask 'is an information need always individual or personal, and under what circumstances?' The present paper argues that the concept of information need may profit from a pragmatic and semeiotic perspective, which also may prove fruitful for KO. The paper thus discusses the concept of information need through three premises that is formulated based in Peirce's pragmatic semeiotic: 1) as the intricate relation between believe and doubt, 2) as a pragmatic process of clarification, and 3) as an activity of cognition taking place within a universe of discourse. The paper is rounded by a discussion of how this semeiotic analysis can be useful for KO.

Type

a

0.002269176 = product of:
  0.004538352 = sum of:
    0.004538352 = product of:
      0.009076704 = sum of:
        0.009076704 = weight(_text_:a in 292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009076704 = score(doc=292,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 292, 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=292)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to explore the basics of semiotic analysis and concept theory that represent two dominant approaches to knowledge representation, and explore how these approaches are fruitful for knowledge organization. Design/methodology/approach - In particular the semiotic theory formulated by the American philosopher C.S. Peirce and the concept theory formulated by Ingetraut Dahlberg are investigated. The paper compares the differences and similarities between these two theories of knowledge representation. Findings - The semiotic model is a general and unrestricted model of signs and Dahlberg's model is thought from the perspective and demand of better knowledge organization system (KOS) development. It is found that Dahlberg's concept model provides a detailed method for analyzing and representing concepts in a KOS, where semiotics provides the philosophical context for representation. Originality/value - This paper is the first to combine theories of knowledge representation, semiotic and concept theory, within the context of knowledge organization.

Type

a

0.0020506454 = product of:
  0.004101291 = sum of:
    0.004101291 = product of:
      0.008202582 = sum of:
        0.008202582 = weight(_text_:a in 1014) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008202582 = score(doc=1014,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 1014, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1014)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We present our semeiotic-inspired concept of information as 1 of 3 important elements in meaning creation, the 2 other concepts being emotion and cognition. We have the inner world (emotion); we have the outer world (information); and cognition mediates between the two. We analyze the 3 elements in relation to communication and discuss the semeiotics-inspired communication model, the Dynacom; then, we discuss our semeiotic perspective on the meaning-creation process and communication with regard to a few, but central, elements in library and information science, namely, the systems-oriented perspective, the user-oriented perspective, and a domain-oriented perspective.

Type

a

0.001913537 = product of:
  0.003827074 = sum of:
    0.003827074 = product of:
      0.007654148 = sum of:
        0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007654148 = score(doc=320,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 320, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=320)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Building on Jens-Erik Mai: 'Semiotics and its uses in library and information science', discusses indexing and semiotics. Presents the concept significance affect as expression of an information effect in index words, based on a discussion of the key concepts in Geroge Lakoff's cognitive semantics: basic-level categorizing, cue validity, prototype effect, kinesthetic image schemas, metaphors, metonymy and radical structures, and idealized cognitive models

Type

a

0.0014351527 = product of:
  0.0028703054 = sum of:
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 1753) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005740611 = score(doc=1753,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 1753, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1753)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of the paper is to examine and compare Nicholas Belkin's information concept and his concept of communication with the authors' semeiotic inspired communication model - the Dynacom. Design/methodology/approach - The authors compare the two communication models by comparing the requirements given by Belkin and the conditions of the Dynacom. Findings - The authors conclude that Belkin's idea of information and his idea of communication lack the social aspect. Based on his theory, he is unable to point out how information becomes knowledge. These are two major issues the authors believe they can elaborate on by introducing the Dynacom and their semeiotic inspired concept of information. Originality/value - No one has previously specifically analyzed Nicholas Belkin's concept of information and compared it to a semeiotic ditto.

Type

a