Search (18 results, page 1 of 1)

0.028630337 = product of:
  0.07157584 = sum of:
    0.05997715 = weight(_text_:great in 3077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05997715 = score(doc=3077,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24101958 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.24884763 = fieldWeight in 3077, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3077)
    0.011598689 = product of:
      0.023197377 = sum of:
        0.023197377 = weight(_text_:22 in 3077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023197377 = score(doc=3077,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14989214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042803947 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3077, 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=3077)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The new term Representation of knowledge, applied to the framework of electronic segments of information, with comprehension of new material support for information, and a review and total conceptualisation of the terminology which is being applied, entails a review of all traditional documentary practices. Therefore, a definition of the concept of Representation of knowledge is indispensable. The term representation has been used in westere cultural and intellectual tradition to refer to the diverse ways that a subject comprehends an object. Representation is a process which requires the structure of natural language and human memory whereby it is interwoven in a subject and in conscience. However, at the present time, the term Representation of knowledge is applied to the processing of electronic information, combined with the aim of emulating the human mind in such a way that one has endeavoured to transfer, with great difficulty, the complex structurality of the conceptual representation of human knowledge to new digital information technologies. Thus, nowadays, representation of knowledge has taken an diverse meanings and it has focussed, for the moment, an certain structures and conceptual hierarchies which carry and transfer information, and has initially been based an the current representation of knowledge using artificial intelligence. The traditional languages of documentation, also referred to as languages of representation, offer a structured representation of conceptual fields, symbols and terms of natural and notational language, and they are the pillars for the necessary correspondence between the object or text and its representation. These correspondences, connections and symbolisations will be established within the electronic framework by means of different models and of the "goal" domain, which will give rise to organisations, structures, maps, networks and levels, as new electronic documents are not compact units but segments of information. Thus, the new representation of knowledge refers to data, images, figures and symbolised, treated, processed and structured ideas which replace or refer to documents within the framework of technical processing and the recuperation of electronic information.

Date

2. 1.2005 18:22:25

0.016315361 = product of:
  0.0815768 = sum of:
    0.0815768 = weight(_text_:policy in 703) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0815768 = score(doc=703,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22950763 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.35544267 = fieldWeight in 703, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=703)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This paper introduces the concept of 'social quality' as a measure of quality-of-life and it sets out a framework for identifying social indicators of the relationship between information and social quality. Social quality has four elements: socio - economic security, social inclusion, social cohesion and empowerment. Illustrative indicators are identified at both national (Demos) and community (Ethnos) level for four different aspects of each social quality element: input, process, outcome and impact. Then the distribution of information and social quality between Demos and Ethnos levels is investigated. It is concluded that usable indicators of all aspects of each element of social quality can be identified and that analysis of informational social quality at Demos and Ethnos level can add to knowledge about information provision and policy, particularly with reference to minority and marginal communities.

0.014994288 = product of:
  0.07497144 = sum of:
    0.07497144 = weight(_text_:great in 1991) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07497144 = score(doc=1991,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.24101958 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.31105953 = fieldWeight in 1991, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1991)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This book tells the story of Emanuel Goldberg, a chemist, inventor, and industrialist who contributed to almost every aspect of imaging technology in the first half of the 20th century. An incredible story emerges as Buckland unearths forgotten documents and rogue citations to show that Goldberg created the first desktop search engine, developed microdot technology, and designed the famous Contax 35 mm camera. It is a fascinating tribute to a great mind and a crucial period in the history of information science and technology.

0.013596135 = product of:
  0.06798068 = sum of:
    0.06798068 = weight(_text_:policy in 3003) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06798068 = score(doc=3003,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22950763 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.29620224 = fieldWeight in 3003, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3003)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The article discusses the relationship between the concepts of information and IT literacy, both being labeled as «the ultimate literacy in the information society». While IT literacy is mainly defined as a skill-based literacy, information literacy embraces a whole conglomerate of values, attitudes, skills, knowledge and perspectives directed towards enabling critical thinking, self-directed learning and the responsible consume of information, necessary for intelligent existence in the information age. Through a survey, the authors will explore personal meanings and perceptions of information literacy among graduate LIS students. For this population, information literacy is a central issue since it is a prerequisite for academic success, but also because information literacy will be a pervasive aspect of every day work in their future professions. A comparison with an earlier study showed how the information literacy conception has developed, from a more technological, tool-based approach to a concept based approach. The structure of the earlier study, as well as the result of the actual study, will be analyzed in the light of the contemporary features of Croatia's information policy, which is mainly directed towards the technical information infrastructure but not sufficient to let citizens use the benefits of information society.

0.010602563 = product of:
  0.053012814 = sum of:
    0.053012814 = weight(_text_:great in 1182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.053012814 = score(doc=1182,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.24101958 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.21995232 = fieldWeight in 1182, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1182)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Although the Alexandria Digital Library provides far richer data than the TGN (5.9 vs. 1.3 million names), its added size lowers, rather than increases, the accuracy of most geographic name identification systems for historical documents: most of the extra 4.6 million names cover low frequency entities that rarely occur in any particular corpus. The TGN is sufficiently comprehensive to provide quite enough noise: we find place names that are used over and over (there are almost one hundred Washingtons) and semantically ambiguous (e.g., is Washington a person or a place?). Comprehensive knowledge sources emphasize recall but lower precision. We need data with which to determine which "Tribune" or "John Brown" a particular passage denotes. Secondly and paradoxically, our reference works may not be comprehensive enough. Human actors come and go over time. Organizations appear and vanish. Even places can change their names or vanish. The TGN does associate the obsolete name Siam with the nation of Thailand (tgn,1000142) - but also with towns named Siam in Iowa (tgn,2035651), Tennessee (tgn,2101519), and Ohio (tgn,2662003). Prussia appears but as a general region (tgn,7016786), with no indication when or if it was a sovereign nation. And if places do point to the same object over time, that object may have very different significance over time: in the foundational works of Western historiography, Herodotus reminds us that the great cities of the past may be small today, and the small cities of today great tomorrow (Hdt. 1.5), while Thucydides stresses that we cannot estimate the past significance of a place by its appearance today (Thuc. 1.10). In other words, we need to know the population figures for the various Washingtons in 1870 if we are analyzing documents from 1870. The foundations have been laid for reference works that provide machine actionable information about entities at particular times in history. The Alexandria Digital Library Gazetteer Content Standard8 represents a sophisticated framework with which to create such resources: places can be associated with temporal information about their foundation (e.g., Washington, DC, founded on 16 July 1790), changes in names for the same location (e.g., Saint Petersburg to Leningrad and back again), population figures at various times and similar historically contingent data. But if we have the software and the data structures, we do not yet have substantial amounts of historical content such as plentiful digital gazetteers, encyclopedias, lexica, grammars and other reference works to illustrate many periods and, even if we do, those resources may not be in a useful form: raw OCR output of a complex lexicon or gazetteer may have so many errors and have captured so little of the underlying structure that the digital resource is useless as a knowledge base. Put another way, human beings are still much better at reading and interpreting the contents of page images than machines. While people, places, and dates are probably the most important core entities, we will find a growing set of objects that we need to identify and track across collections, and each of these categories of objects will require its own knowledge sources. The following section enumerates and briefly describes some existing categories of documents that we need to mine for knowledge. This brief survey focuses on the format of print sources (e.g., highly structured textual "database" vs. unstructured text) to illustrate some of the challenges involved in converting our published knowledge into semantically annotated, machine actionable form.

0.009278951 = product of:
  0.046394754 = sum of:
    0.046394754 = product of:
      0.09278951 = sum of:
        0.09278951 = weight(_text_:22 in 4368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09278951 = score(doc=4368,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14989214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042803947 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4368, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4368)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:22:28

0.008157681 = product of:
  0.0407884 = sum of:
    0.0407884 = weight(_text_:policy in 5079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0407884 = score(doc=5079,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22950763 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.17772134 = fieldWeight in 5079, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5079)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Discussions about the concept of information in other disciplines are very important for IS because many theories and approaches in IS have their origins elsewhere (see the section "Information as an Interdisciplinary Concept" in this chapter). The epistemological concept of information brings into play nonhuman information processes, particularly in physics and biology. And vice versa: the psychic and sociological processes of selection and interpretation may be considered using objective parameters, leaving aside the semantic dimension, or more precisely, by considering objective or situational parameters of interpretation. This concept can be illustrated also in physical terms with regard to release mechanisms, as we suggest. Our overview of the concept of information in the natural sciences as well as in the humanities and social sciences cannot hope to be comprehensive. In most cases, we can refer only to fragments of theories. However, the reader may wish to follow the leads provided in the bibliography. Readers interested primarily in information science may derive most benefit from the section an "Information in Information Science," in which we offer a detailed explanation of diverse views and theories of information within our field; supplementing the recent ARIST chapter by Cornelius (2002). We show that the introduction of the concept of information circa 1950 to the domain of special librarianship and documentation has in itself had serious consequences for the types of knowledge and theories developed in our field. The important question is not only what meaning we give the term in IS, but also how it relates to other basic terms, such as documents, texts, and knowledge. Starting with an objectivist view from the world of information theory and cybernetics, information science has turned to the phenomena of relevance and interpretation as basic aspects of the concept of information. This change is in no way a turn to a subjectivist theory, but an appraisal of different perspectives that may determine in a particular context what is being considered as informative, be it a "thing" (Buckland, 1991b) or a document. Different concepts of information within information science reflect tensions between a subjective and an objective approach. The concept of interpretation or selection may be considered to be the bridge between these two poles. It is important, however, to consider the different professions involved with the interpretation and selection of knowledge. The most important thing in IS (as in information policy) is to consider information as a constitutive forte in society and, thus, recognize the teleological nature of information systems and services (Braman, 1989).

0.008035808 = product of:
  0.040179037 = sum of:
    0.040179037 = product of:
      0.08035807 = sum of:
        0.08035807 = weight(_text_:22 in 136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08035807 = score(doc=136,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.14989214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042803947 = queryNorm
            0.536106 = fieldWeight in 136, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=136)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 2.2007 18:56:23
22. 2.2007 19:22:13

0.0067980676 = product of:
  0.03399034 = sum of:
    0.03399034 = weight(_text_:policy in 3686) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03399034 = score(doc=3686,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22950763 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042803947 = queryNorm
        0.14810112 = fieldWeight in 3686, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3686)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Footnote

Lastly, chapter 10 considers possible future directions of the information literacy movement. The authors conclude "Our ability to be information literate depends an our willingness to be lifelong learners as we are challenged to master new, and as yet unknown, technologies that will surely alter the landscape of information in the future" (p. 177). Following the book's 10 chapters are a number of appendices that present information literacy standards and definitions, a timeline of the evolution of the information literacy movement, and a number of related bibliographies. Lead author Eisenberg is perhaps best known as the co-creator, with Bob Berkowitz, of the Big 6, an information literacy model. The model includes six components: Task Definition, Information Seeking Strategies, Location and Access, Use of Information, Synthesis, and Evaluation (Eisenberg, 2003). Throughout the book, Eisenberg and his co-authors show how the Big 6 model can be used to teach information literacy. For example, in chapter nine, "Technology and Information Literacy," they lay out each of the six model components, providing specific technological skills benchmarks for each, such as "Know the roles and computer expertise of the people working in the school library media center and elsewhere who might provide information or assistance" under step 3, "Location and Access" (p. 160). The many detailed descriptions of information literacy policies and programs that appear throughout the book make it most useful for educators, administrators, and policy makers involved in the teaching, planning, and development of information literacy programs, standards, and policies. Overall, this newly revised volume stands as one of the most comprehensive single available sources from which to begin a detailed investigation of the concept of information literacy."

0.0057993443 = product of:
  0.02899672 = sum of:
    0.02899672 = product of:
      0.05799344 = sum of:
        0.05799344 = weight(_text_:22 in 2277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05799344 = score(doc=2277,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14989214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042803947 = queryNorm
            0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 2277, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=2277)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

31. 7.2001 20:22:57

0.005741058 = product of:
  0.02870529 = sum of:
    0.02870529 = product of:
      0.05741058 = sum of:
        0.05741058 = weight(_text_:22 in 2746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05741058 = score(doc=2746,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14989214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042803947 = queryNorm
            0.38301262 = fieldWeight in 2746, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2746)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 3.2009 18:15:22

0.004059541 = product of:
  0.020297704 = sum of:
    0.020297704 = product of:
      0.04059541 = sum of:
        0.04059541 = weight(_text_:22 in 3067) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04059541 = score(doc=3067,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14989214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042803947 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3067, 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=3067)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

15. 6.2002 19:22:01

0.004059541 = product of:
  0.020297704 = sum of:
    0.020297704 = product of:
      0.04059541 = sum of:
        0.04059541 = weight(_text_:22 in 2790) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04059541 = score(doc=2790,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14989214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042803947 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2790, 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=2790)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 3.2009 19:16:44

0.0034796062 = product of:
  0.017398031 = sum of:
    0.017398031 = product of:
      0.034796063 = sum of:
        0.034796063 = weight(_text_:22 in 479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034796063 = score(doc=479,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14989214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042803947 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 479, 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=479)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

23. 1.2022 10:22:18

0.0032806047 = product of:
  0.016403023 = sum of:
    0.016403023 = product of:
      0.032806046 = sum of:
        0.032806046 = weight(_text_:22 in 3012) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032806046 = score(doc=3012,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.14989214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042803947 = queryNorm
            0.21886435 = fieldWeight in 3012, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3012)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 7.2009 11:23:22

0.0028996721 = product of:
  0.01449836 = sum of:
    0.01449836 = product of:
      0.02899672 = sum of:
        0.02899672 = weight(_text_:22 in 5268) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02899672 = score(doc=5268,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14989214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042803947 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5268, 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=5268)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 7.2006 15:09:35

0.0023197378 = product of:
  0.011598689 = sum of:
    0.011598689 = product of:
      0.023197377 = sum of:
        0.023197377 = weight(_text_:22 in 3008) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023197377 = score(doc=3008,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14989214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042803947 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3008, 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=3008)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 7.2009 9:24:59

0.0014498361 = product of:
  0.00724918 = sum of:
    0.00724918 = product of:
      0.01449836 = sum of:
        0.01449836 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01449836 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14989214 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042803947 = queryNorm
            0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 2748, 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=2748)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 3.2009 18:13:27