Search (3665 results, page 1 of 184)

0.16048539 = product of:
  0.21398051 = sum of:
    0.017839102 = weight(_text_:information in 4199) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017839102 = score(doc=4199,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 4199, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4199)
    0.17564954 = weight(_text_:standards in 4199) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.17564954 = score(doc=4199,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.7817061 = fieldWeight in 4199, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4199)
    0.02049187 = product of:
      0.04098374 = sum of:
        0.04098374 = weight(_text_:22 in 4199) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04098374 = score(doc=4199,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4199, 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=4199)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Educational standards are a central focus of the current educational system in the United States, underpinning educational practice, curriculum design, teacher professional development, and high-stakes testing and assessment. Digital library users have requested that this information be accessible in association with digital learning resources to support teaching and learning as well as accountability requirements. Providing this information is complex because of the variability and number of standards documents in use at the national, state, and local level. This article describes a cataloging tool that aids catalogers in the assignment of standards metadata to digital library resources, using natural language processing techniques. The research explores whether the standards suggestor service would suggest the same standards as a human, whether relevant standards are ranked appropriately in the result set, and whether the relevance of the suggested assignments improve when, in addition to resource content, metadata is included in the query to the cataloging tool. The article also discusses how this service might streamline the cataloging workflow.

Date

22. 1.2011 14:25:32

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.2, S.395-405

0.15762594 = product of:
  0.21016793 = sum of:
    0.025691241 = weight(_text_:information in 1436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025691241 = score(doc=1436,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.29028487 = fieldWeight in 1436, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1436)
    0.117099695 = weight(_text_:standards in 1436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.117099695 = score(doc=1436,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.5211374 = fieldWeight in 1436, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1436)
    0.067376986 = sum of:
      0.040054493 = weight(_text_:organization in 1436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040054493 = score(doc=1436,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.22283478 = fieldWeight in 1436, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1436)
      0.027322493 = weight(_text_:22 in 1436) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027322493 = score(doc=1436,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1436, 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=1436)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

The development of complex projects in the aerospace industry is based on the collaboration of geographically distributed teams and companies. In this context, the need of sharing different types of data and information is a key factor to assure the successful execution of the projects. In the case of European projects, the ECSS standards provide a normative framework that specifies, among other requirements, the different document types, information items and artifacts that need to be generated. The specification of the characteristics of these information items are usually incorporated as annex to the different ECSS standards, and they provide the intended purpose, scope, and structure of the documents and information items. In these standards, documents or deliverables should not be considered as independent items, but as the results of packaging different information artifacts for their delivery between the involved parties. Successful information integration and knowledge exchange cannot be based exclusively on the conceptual definition of information types. It also requires the definition of methods and techniques for serializing and exchanging these documents and artifacts. This area is not covered by ECSS standards, and the definition of these data schemas would improve the opportunity for improving collaboration processes among companies. This paper describes the development of an OWL-based ontology to manage the different artifacts and information items requested in the European Space Agency (ESA) ECSS standards for SW development. The ECSS set of standards is the main reference in aerospace projects in Europe, and in addition to engineering and managerial requirements they provide a set of DRD (Document Requirements Documents) with the structure of the different documents and records necessary to manage projects and describe intermediate information products and final deliverables. Information integration is a must-have in aerospace projects, where different players need to collaborate and share data during the life cycle of the products about requirements, design elements, problems, etc. The proposed ontology provides the basis for building advanced information systems where the information coming from different companies and institutions can be integrated into a coherent set of related data. It also provides a conceptual framework to enable the development of interfaces and gateways between the different tools and information systems used by the different players in aerospace projects.

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol. 14

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

0.14731443 = product of:
  0.19641924 = sum of:
    0.025228297 = weight(_text_:information in 424) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025228297 = score(doc=424,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.2850541 = fieldWeight in 424, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=424)
    0.114989616 = weight(_text_:standards in 424) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.114989616 = score(doc=424,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.51174676 = fieldWeight in 424, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=424)
    0.05620132 = product of:
      0.11240264 = sum of:
        0.11240264 = weight(_text_:organization in 424) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11240264 = score(doc=424,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.62532854 = fieldWeight in 424, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=424)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Ethical standards are required at both the individual and system levels of the information organization enterprise, but are those standards the same? For example, are the ethical responsibilities of DDC's editorial board fundamentally the same as for an individual cataloger? And, what are the consequences of decisions made using different ethical frameworks to the users of knowledge organization systems? A selection of ethical theories suitable for evaluating moral dilemmas at all levels in information organization is presented, including utilitarianism, deontology, and pragmatism, as well as the more contemporary approaches of justice, feminist, and Derridean ethics. Finally, a selection of criteria is outlined, taken from the existing ethical frameworks, to use as a starting point for development of an ethical framework specifically for information organization.

Content

Beitrag aus einem Themenheft zu den Proceedings of the 2nd Milwaukee Conference on Ethics in Information Organization, June 15-16, 2012, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Hope A. Olson, Conference Chair. Vgl.: http://www.ergon-verlag.de/isko_ko/downloads/ko_39_2012_5_j.pdf.

Source

Knowledge organization. 39(2012) no.5, S.377-383

0.14379692 = product of:
  0.19172922 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 1402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=1402,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1402, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1402)
    0.0553244 = weight(_text_:standards in 1402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0553244 = score(doc=1402,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.24621427 = fieldWeight in 1402, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1402)
    0.12782198 = sum of:
      0.09366887 = weight(_text_:organization in 1402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09366887 = score(doc=1402,freq=14.0), product of:
          0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.52110714 = fieldWeight in 1402, product of:
            3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
              14.0 = termFreq=14.0
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1402)
      0.03415312 = weight(_text_:22 in 1402) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03415312 = score(doc=1402,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1402, 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=1402)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Since the middle of the last century knowledge organization, the development of scientific concepts and arrangements, has been seen as a cognitivistic (or rationalistic) problem and thus as universal and logical (cf. Turing 1950). Older approaches accordingly see areas of knowledge as naturally given and organically grown. The knowledge must only be detected and logically arranged. At latest with the constructivism a 'turn' has entered, which sees knowledge organization as a social convention and accordingly regards universal standards skeptical. Simultaneously in the sciences came up a stronger concern with historical, empirical and sociological studies of its foundations and in philosophy of science the return to different kinds of relativizations has gained more importance. With the challenge of self-organizing ordering systems by social software a new crisis comes up for knowledge organization. The future might be a combination of logical descriptions, specialized evaluation, and accompanying user-driven principles. In this paper, several classical sociological positions are discussed, conclusions are drawn for knowledge and information as well as for science and for knowledge organization and objections and prospects are designated.

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol. 14

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

0.13331564 = product of:
  0.17775418 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 4887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=4887,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4887, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4887)
    0.066389285 = weight(_text_:standards in 4887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066389285 = score(doc=4887,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.29545712 = fieldWeight in 4887, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4887)
    0.10106549 = sum of:
      0.060081743 = weight(_text_:organization in 4887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.060081743 = score(doc=4887,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.33425218 = fieldWeight in 4887, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4887)
      0.04098374 = weight(_text_:22 in 4887) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04098374 = score(doc=4887,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4887, 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=4887)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

This paper presents an overview of the activities of the "Unità di Ricerca presso Terzi" (URT) - "Indexing and classification systems" of the National Research Council (CNR), which deals with research in organization and document management systems, indexing, classification, knowledge, and content management. Particular attention will be focused on the project of the Electronic Health Record Technological Infrastructure (InFSE), in which the URT works on the definition of ontological models, and vocabularies supporting EHR with the aim to build an updated Italian version of a unified medical reporting language. Although current Italian legislation makes mandatory the use of internationally recognized classification systems to help interoperability and exchange of information, the current structure of those systems does not allow their full use in the Italian context. For all these reasons, it is necessary to make some adaptations in the International Classification of Disease 9th Revision terminology, used for diagnosis encoding, and in the Logical Observation Names and Codes, used for encoding laboratory observations.

Date

22. 1.2012 12:55:24

Source

Knowledge organization. 39(2012) no.1, S.3-12

0.12784204 = product of:
  0.17045605 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 3697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=3697,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 3697, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3697)
    0.066389285 = weight(_text_:standards in 3697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066389285 = score(doc=3697,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.29545712 = fieldWeight in 3697, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3697)
    0.083467945 = sum of:
      0.042484205 = weight(_text_:organization in 3697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042484205 = score(doc=3697,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.23635197 = fieldWeight in 3697, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3697)
      0.04098374 = weight(_text_:22 in 3697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04098374 = score(doc=3697,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3697, 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=3697)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

In order to enhance the use of Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) numbers in information retrieval, the authors have represented classification with multilingual thesaurus descriptors and implemented this solution in an automated way. The authors illustrate a solution implemented in a BiblioPhil library system. The standard formats used are UNIMARC for subject authority records (i.e. the UDC-based multilingual thesaurus) and MARC XML support for data transfer. The multilingual thesaurus was built according to existing standards, the constituent parts of the classification notations being used as the basis for search terms in the multilingual information retrieval. The verbal equivalents, descriptors and non-descriptors, are used to expand the number of concepts and are given in Romanian, English and French. This approach saves the time of the indexer and provides more user-friendly and easier access to the bibliographic information. The multilingual aspect of the thesaurus enhances information access for a greater number of online users

Date

22. 7.2010 20:40:56

Source

Knowledge organization. 37(2010) no.3, S.209-215

0.117747255 = product of:
  0.15699634 = sum of:
    0.019420752 = weight(_text_:information in 5232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019420752 = score(doc=5232,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 5232, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5232)
    0.088519044 = weight(_text_:standards in 5232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.088519044 = score(doc=5232,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.39394283 = fieldWeight in 5232, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5232)
    0.049056537 = product of:
      0.098113075 = sum of:
        0.098113075 = weight(_text_:organization in 5232) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.098113075 = score(doc=5232,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.5458315 = fieldWeight in 5232, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5232)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Interoperability refers to the ability of two or more systems or components to exchange information and to use the information that has been exchanged. This article presents the major viewpoints of interoperability, with the focus on semantic interoperability. It discusses the approaches to achieving interoperability as demonstrated in standards and best practices, projects, and products in the broad domain of knowledge organization.

Series

Reviews of concepts in knowledge organization

Source

Knowledge organization. 46(2019) no.2, S.122-146

0.11253528 = product of:
  0.15004705 = sum of:
    0.014565565 = weight(_text_:information in 2611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014565565 = score(doc=2611,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2611, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2611)
    0.114989616 = weight(_text_:standards in 2611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.114989616 = score(doc=2611,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.51174676 = fieldWeight in 2611, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2611)
    0.02049187 = product of:
      0.04098374 = sum of:
        0.04098374 = weight(_text_:22 in 2611) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04098374 = score(doc=2611,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2611, 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=2611)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Enhancing content description of specialized resources, particularly astronomical resources, is a matter that is still unresolved in library and information science. In this paper, the authors outline deficiencies in some fields and elements of cataloging standards for description of historical astronomical resources, mainly star atlases and catalogs. Furthermore, they review their recent proposal of astronomical parameters for a better description and propose an approach for accommodating these parameters in the current criteria of MARC 21, the International Standard Bibliographic Description, and Resource Description and Access. Fourteen new parameters are considered, and recommendations are provided to standards developers for the addition of elements to accommodate attributes of celestial cartographic resources. This would improve bibliographic records for such resources in astronomical libraries' OPACs, which will have a beneficial effect on information retrieval.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.109795555 = product of:
  0.14639407 = sum of:
    0.01816645 = weight(_text_:information in 1454) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01816645 = score(doc=1454,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.20526241 = fieldWeight in 1454, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1454)
    0.044259522 = weight(_text_:standards in 1454) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044259522 = score(doc=1454,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.19697142 = fieldWeight in 1454, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1454)
    0.0839681 = sum of:
      0.056645606 = weight(_text_:organization in 1454) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056645606 = score(doc=1454,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.31513596 = fieldWeight in 1454, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1454)
      0.027322493 = weight(_text_:22 in 1454) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027322493 = score(doc=1454,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1454, 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=1454)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

The present paper aims to analyze the treatment to the contents of theatrical texts under the Knowledge Organization perspective, searching for a way to facilitate and the access to the contents of type of text. The article presents the concept of information, deals with document abstract as tool to recuperate information, provides the free consultation to the content of a document even before reaching the wanted result, once the abstract is well formulated it can replace the consultation of the original document, and it also helps the searching process to attain more accurate and proper results for each user. The paper takes into consideration the importance of the different types of documents to recover information, and points out that in the literature there is not a particular methodology to prepare abstracts of theater plays. Therefore, it analyzes the norms from the Associação Brasileira de NormasTécnicas (ABNT), the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) to elaborate an abstract, with the scope to verify if their norms comply with the needs of a theatrical text, once the general overview of such norms may not be enough to comprise all the information that a theatrical text must contain. The main characteristics of the theatrical text are also discussed, presenting the main elements in the text with a methodological proposal on how to elaborate its abstract. The analysis of the theatrical text only takes into consideration the written text, disregarding the issues related the theatrical staging, even considering that there are elements in this type of text that are tools that help the staging , such elements are not analyzed for the purposes of this paper. It discuss the theatrical text according to its peculiarities, which makes it different form scientific or literary texts, in order to summon the fundamental information to elaborate the abstract under the perspective of organizing the information contained in this type of document. A proposal of a methodological construction for theatrical texts is suggested, in order to align the elements from the documentary abstracts and from the peculiarity of a theatrical text. The results from this research indicate that the elements to be included in the abstracts of theatrical plays are the identification of the main characters, the events that are relevant for the plot and its closing.

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol. 14

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

0.10819927 = product of:
  0.1442657 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 3871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=3871,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3871, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3871)
    0.1106488 = weight(_text_:standards in 3871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.1106488 = score(doc=3871,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.49242854 = fieldWeight in 3871, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3871)
    0.025034059 = product of:
      0.050068118 = sum of:
        0.050068118 = weight(_text_:organization in 3871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050068118 = score(doc=3871,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.27854347 = fieldWeight in 3871, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3871)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

This study presents preliminary themes surfaced from an ongoing ethnographic study. The research question is: how and where do cultures influence the cataloging practices of using U.S. standards to catalog Chinese materials? The author applies warrant as a lens for evaluating knowledge representation systems, and extends the application from examining classificatory decisions to cataloging decisions. Semantic warrant as a conceptual tool allows us to recognize and name the various rationales behind cataloging decisions, grants us explanatory power, and the language to "visualize" and reflect on the conflicting priorities in cataloging practices. Through participatory observation, the author recorded the cataloging practices of two Chinese catalogers working on the same cataloging project. One of the catalogers is U.S. trained, and another cataloger is a professor of Library and Information Science from China, who is also a subject expert and a cataloger of Chinese special collections. The study shows how the catalogers describe Chinese special collections using many U.S. cataloging and classification standards but from different approaches. The author presents particular cases derived from the fieldwork, with an emphasis on the many layers presented by cultures, principles, standards, and practices of different scope, each of which may represent conflicting warrants. From this, it is made clear that the conflicts of warrants influence cataloging practice. We may view the conflicting warrants as an interpretation of the tension between different semantic warrants and the globalization and localization of cataloging standards.

Content

Beitrag bei: NASKO 2017: Visualizing Knowledge Organization: Bringing Focus to Abstract Realities. The sixth North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization (NASKO 2017), June 15-16, 2017, in Champaign, IL, USA.

0.09710424 = product of:
  0.12947232 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 5210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=5210,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 5210, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5210)
    0.066389285 = weight(_text_:standards in 5210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066389285 = score(doc=5210,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.29545712 = fieldWeight in 5210, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5210)
    0.042484205 = product of:
      0.08496841 = sum of:
        0.08496841 = weight(_text_:organization in 5210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08496841 = score(doc=5210,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.47270393 = fieldWeight in 5210, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5210)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

In the post-war period before computers were readily available, urgent demand for scientific and industrial develop-ment stimulated research and development (R&D) that led to the birth of the information retrieval thesaurus. This article traces the early history, speciation and progressive improvement of the thesaurus to reach the state now conveyed by guidelines in inter-national and national standards. Despite doubts about the effec-tiveness of the thesaurus throughout this period, and notwith-standing the dominance of Google and other search engines in the information retrieval (IR) scene today, the thesaurus still plays a complementary part in the organization of knowledge and in-formation resources. Success today depends on interoperability, and is opening up opportunities in linked data applications. At the same time, the IR demand from workers in the knowledge society drives interest in hybrid forms of knowledge organization system (KOS) that may pool the genes of thesauri with those of ontologies and classification schemes.

Object

Information Retrieval Thesaurus

Series

Reviews of concepts in knowledge organization

Source

Knowledge organization. 46(2019) no.6, S.439-459

0.09654075 = product of:
  0.128721 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 4137) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=4137,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4137, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4137)
    0.066389285 = weight(_text_:standards in 4137) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066389285 = score(doc=4137,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.29545712 = fieldWeight in 4137, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4137)
    0.05203231 = product of:
      0.10406462 = sum of:
        0.10406462 = weight(_text_:organization in 4137) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10406462 = score(doc=4137,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.5789417 = fieldWeight in 4137, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4137)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

This special issue is concerned with knowledge organization in the museum domain, exploring the standards and processes for structuring and managing museum knowledge. Museums, like libraries and archives, are memory institutions for recording, preserving, and disseminating the history of material culture. Museums and their collections are exceedingly heterogeneous, reflecting the fields of art history, natural history, anthropology, and the sciences. The diverse range of museum objects necessitates complex and specialized KOSs to describe their materiality and context. Museum knowledge organization is object- and context-specific, sensitive to the unique instantiation of an object and its temporal, geospatial, and cultural relationships. This timely special issue on museum knowledge organization reflects contemporaneous challenges and, more broadly, an adoption of information science methodologies and practices within the museum sphere.

Content

Einleitung zu einem Special Issue: Knowledge Organization within the Museum Domain.

Source

Knowledge organization. 44(2017) no.7, S.469-471

0.09424831 = product of:
  0.12566441 = sum of:
    0.01213797 = weight(_text_:information in 2195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01213797 = score(doc=2195,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 2195, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2195)
    0.09582469 = weight(_text_:standards in 2195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09582469 = score(doc=2195,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.42645568 = fieldWeight in 2195, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2195)
    0.017701752 = product of:
      0.035403505 = sum of:
        0.035403505 = weight(_text_:organization in 2195) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035403505 = score(doc=2195,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19695997 = fieldWeight in 2195, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2195)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Riley's survey (2010) of metadata standards for cultural heritage collections represents a rare attempt to classify such standards, in this case according to their domain, community, function and purpose. This paper reports on a survey of metadata standards with particular functions, i.e. those of schemas and vocabularies, but that have been published online for any domain or community (and not just those of the cultural heritage sector). In total, 53 schemas and 328 vocabularies were identified as within scope, and were classified according to their subject coverage and the type of warrant used in their reported development, i.e. resource, expert or user warrant, or a combination of these types. There was found to be a general correlation between the coverage of the schemas and vocabularies. Areas of underrepresentation would appear to be the humanities and the fine arts, and, in the case of schemas, also law, engineering, manufacturing and sport. Schemas would appear to be constructed more by consulting experts and considering endusers' search behaviour; vocabularies, on the other hand, are developed more by considering the information resources themselves, or by combining a range of methods.

Source

Knowledge organization. 42(2015) no.3, S.154-163

0.09367848 = product of:
  0.18735696 = sum of:
    0.019420752 = weight(_text_:information in 4826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019420752 = score(doc=4826,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.21943474 = fieldWeight in 4826, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4826)
    0.1679362 = sum of:
      0.11329121 = weight(_text_:organization in 4826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.11329121 = score(doc=4826,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.6302719 = fieldWeight in 4826, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4826)
      0.054644987 = weight(_text_:22 in 4826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054644987 = score(doc=4826,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 4826, 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=4826)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

18. 1.2019 19:13:22

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.16

Source

Challenges and opportunities for knowledge organization in the digital age: proceedings of the Fifteenth International ISKO Conference, 9-11 July 2018, Porto, Portugal / organized by: International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO Spain and Portugal Chapter, University of Porto - Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Research Centre in Communication, Information and Digital Culture (CIC.digital) - Porto. Eds.: F. Ribeiro u. M.E. Cerveira

0.09322362 = product of:
  0.124298155 = sum of:
    0.02102358 = weight(_text_:information in 4739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02102358 = score(doc=4739,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23754507 = fieldWeight in 4739, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4739)
    0.07824052 = weight(_text_:standards in 4739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07824052 = score(doc=4739,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.34819958 = fieldWeight in 4739, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4739)
    0.025034059 = product of:
      0.050068118 = sum of:
        0.050068118 = weight(_text_:organization in 4739) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050068118 = score(doc=4739,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.27854347 = fieldWeight in 4739, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4739)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

This paper gives a review of a survey in 2008 on Algerian scientists specialized in agronomic, veterinary and biological sciences, in order to analyze their information behavior and beliefs to evaluate the importance of shared knowledge standards and values. Algeria strongly suffers from insufficient agricultural production and needs to fit into this logic and to use its search results as source of innovation and performance in its current strategy of reducing its food expenditures. However, one of its limitations consists in the lack of tools to foster the capitalization and enhancement of its scientific output. The answer is to propose an information model that considers all connections between actors involved in research as well as those in development. The collected data reveal an essential need for the creation of a convenient framework for the evaluation and sharing of knowledge as a collective good. It is aimed at the creation of an information system with high added value (National Observatory of the Agronomic Research), including a uniform thesaurus in the field specific to the agronomy for the national device of research.

Content

Beitrag innerhalb einer Special Section: Knowledge Organization, Competitive Intelligence, and Information Systems - Papers from 4th International Conference on "Information Systems & Economic Intelligence," February 17-19th, 2011. Marrakech - Morocco.

Source

Knowledge organization. 38(2011) no.5, S.414-424

0.09314062 = product of:
  0.124187484 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 3356) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=3356,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 3356, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3356)
    0.066389285 = weight(_text_:standards in 3356) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066389285 = score(doc=3356,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.29545712 = fieldWeight in 3356, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3356)
    0.047498792 = product of:
      0.094997585 = sum of:
        0.094997585 = weight(_text_:organization in 3356) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.094997585 = score(doc=3356,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.5284991 = fieldWeight in 3356, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3356)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

This paper uses Paul Ricoeur's distinction between language and discourse to help define a North American research agenda in knowledge organization. Ricoeur's concept of discourse as a set of utterances, defined within multiple disciplines and domains, and reducible, not to the word but to the sentence, provides three useful tools for defining our research. First, it enables us to recognize the important contribution of numerous studies that focus on acts of organization, rather than on standards or tools of organization. Second, it provides a paradigm for reconciling the competing demands of interoperability, base on widely-used tools and techniques of library science, and domain integrity, based on user warrant and an understanding of local context. Finally, it resonates with the current economic, political and social climate in which our information systems work, particularly the competing calls for protectionism and globalization.

Source

Knowledge organization. 37(2010) no.1, S.51-57

0.09314062 = product of:
  0.124187484 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 2361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=2361,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2361, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2361)
    0.066389285 = weight(_text_:standards in 2361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066389285 = score(doc=2361,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.29545712 = fieldWeight in 2361, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2361)
    0.047498792 = product of:
      0.094997585 = sum of:
        0.094997585 = weight(_text_:organization in 2361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.094997585 = score(doc=2361,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.5284991 = fieldWeight in 2361, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2361)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Ethical issues arise from adapting standardized classification schemes to local environments. Research affirms mutual influences between culture and classification schemes, however, there are various conceptions of culture. Before diving deeper into discussions on designing a culturally sensitive model of classification and providing ethical information services, it is critical to clarify how culture is defined in the literature. In order to gain a deeper understanding of how scholars view the concept of culture, we review, compare, and aggregate discussions on culture from two bodies of literature: knowledge organization and anthropology. Based on the review, we then propose a working definition of culture for knowledge organization research. This definition points to areas of further research concerning culture, ethics, and knowledge organization.

Content

Beitrag anlässlich: Proceedings of the 3rd Milwaukee Conference on Ethics in Knowledge Organization, May 28-29, 2015, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, USA. Vgl.: http://www.ergon-verlag.de/isko_ko/downloads/ko_42_2015_5.

Source

Knowledge organization. 42(2015) no.5, S.302-307

0.09257929 = product of:
  0.12343906 = sum of:
    0.014565565 = weight(_text_:information in 4298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014565565 = score(doc=4298,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 4298, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4298)
    0.066389285 = weight(_text_:standards in 4298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066389285 = score(doc=4298,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.29545712 = fieldWeight in 4298, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4298)
    0.042484205 = product of:
      0.08496841 = sum of:
        0.08496841 = weight(_text_:organization in 4298) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08496841 = score(doc=4298,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.47270393 = fieldWeight in 4298, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4298)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

This article comprises a literature review and conceptual analysis of Topic Maps-the ISO standard for representing information about the structure of information resources-according to the principles of Knowledge Organization (KO). Using the main principles from this discipline, the study shows how Topic Maps is proposed as an ontology model independent of technology. Topic Maps constitutes a 'bibliographic' meta-language able to represent, extend, and integrate almost all existing Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS) in a standards-based generic model applicable to digital content and to the Web. This report also presents an inventory of the current applications of Topic Maps in Libraries, Archives, and Museums (LAM), as well as in the Digital Humanities. Finally, some directions for further research are suggested, which relate Topic Maps to the main research trends in KO.

Source

Knowledge organization. 38(2011) no.1, S.43-61

0.091581956 = product of:
  0.12210928 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=324,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 324, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=324)
    0.09582469 = weight(_text_:standards in 324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09582469 = score(doc=324,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.42645568 = fieldWeight in 324, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=324)
    0.017701752 = product of:
      0.035403505 = sum of:
        0.035403505 = weight(_text_:organization in 324) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035403505 = score(doc=324,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19695997 = fieldWeight in 324, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=324)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)

Abstract

Libraries are currently seeking to restructure their services and develop new cataloguing standards to position themselves on the web, which has become the main source of information and documents. The current upheaval within the profession is accompanied by the belief that libraries have a major role to play in identifying and supplying content due to their extensive high quality databases, which remain untapped despite efforts to increase catalog performance. They continue to rely on a strategy that has been proven successful since the mid-nineteenth century while seeking other models for their data. Today, they aim to exploit changes brought about by the web to improve content identification. The current intense debate on RDA implementation mirrors this desire for change. The debate is rooted in past efforts and yet tries to incite radical changes as it provides for interoperability from the creation of records through an object modeling in line with web standards and innovations. These innovations are presented through an historical perspective inspired by writings by librarians who are entrusted with helping in the development of bibliographic description standards.

Source

Knowledge organization. 39(2012) no.4, S.276-282

0.09150095 = product of:
  0.1830019 = sum of:
    0.014565565 = weight(_text_:information in 1459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014565565 = score(doc=1459,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 1459, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1459)
    0.16843635 = sum of:
      0.12745261 = weight(_text_:organization in 1459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.12745261 = score(doc=1459,freq=18.0), product of:
          0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.7090559 = fieldWeight in 1459, product of:
            4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
              18.0 = termFreq=18.0
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1459)
      0.04098374 = weight(_text_:22 in 1459) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04098374 = score(doc=1459,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1459, 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=1459)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is exploration of possibilities of knowledge organization (KO) approach to scientific publishing. Resulting research model of KO in publishing represents relations between data organization (DO), information organization (IO) and KO in cycle of scientific research process. The role and place of knowledge organization systems (KOS), meant as metadiscourse tools is underlined. It is close to Hjørland's broader sense of KO (Hjørland, 2008, 86), where it can be treated as a social activity aimed at assigning a specific organizational structure to some knowledge resources that facilitates users' access to the knowledge. This activity means, for example, the organization of information in the form of documents - scientific publications, artifacts of knowledge - in the process of codification of knowledge. Furthermore, it also includes the organization of documents in the society, their types, functions and methods of formation.

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol. 14

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