Search (28 results, page 1 of 2)

0.02424829 = product of:
  0.056579344 = sum of:
    0.017939983 = weight(_text_:information in 6032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017939983 = score(doc=6032,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 6032, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6032)
    0.026633464 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 6032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026633464 = score(doc=6032,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11384433 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 6032, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6032)
    0.0120058935 = product of:
      0.03601768 = sum of:
        0.03601768 = weight(_text_:29 in 6032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03601768 = score(doc=6032,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13239008 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037635546 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 6032, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6032)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)

Abstract

Theories of aboutness and theories of subject analysis and of related concepts such as topicality are often isolated from each other in the literature of information science (IS) and related disciplines. In IS it is important to consider the nature and meaning of these concepts, which is closely related to theoretical and metatheoretical issues in information retrieval (IR). A theory of IR must specify which concepts should be regarded as synonymous concepts and explain how the meaning of the nonsynonymous concepts should be defined

Date

29. 9.2001 14:03:14

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.9, S.774-778

Theme

Information

0.018425835 = product of:
  0.06449042 = sum of:
    0.018833058 = weight(_text_:information in 1958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018833058 = score(doc=1958,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.2850541 = fieldWeight in 1958, 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=1958)
    0.045657367 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045657367 = score(doc=1958,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.11384433 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 1958, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1958)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Information search and retrieval interactions usually involve information content in the form of document collections, information retrieval systems and interfaces, and the user. To fully understand information search and retrieval interactions between users' cognitive space and the information space, researchers need to turn to cognitive models and theories. In this article, the authors use one of these theories, the basic level theory. Use of the basic level theory to understand human categorization is both appropriate and essential to user-centered design of taxonomies, ontologies, browsing interfaces, and other indexing tools and systems. Analyses of data from two studies involving free sorting by 105 participants of 100 images were conducted. The types of categories formed and category labels were examined. Results of the analyses indicate that image category labels generally belong to superordinate to the basic level, and are generic and interpretive. Implications for research on theories of cognition and categorization, and design of image indexing, retrieval and browsing systems are discussed.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.9, S.1383-1392

0.014237488 = product of:
  0.049831204 = sum of:
    0.03954044 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03954044 = score(doc=4471,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11384433 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 4471, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4471)
    0.010290766 = product of:
      0.030872298 = sum of:
        0.030872298 = weight(_text_:29 in 4471) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030872298 = score(doc=4471,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13239008 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037635546 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 4471, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4471)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Analysis of user viewing and query-matching behavior furnishes additional evidence that the relevance of retrieved images for system users may arise from descriptions of objects and content-based elements that are not evident or not even present in the image. This investigation looks at how users assign pre-determined query terms to retrieved images, as well as looking at a post-retrieval process of image engagement to user cognitive assessments of meaningful terms. Additionally, affective/emotion-based query terms appear to be an important descriptive category for image retrieval. A system for capturing (eliciting) human interpretations derived from cognitive engagements with viewed images could further enhance the efficiency of image retrieval systems stemming from traditional indexing methods and technology-based content extraction algorithms. An approach to such a system is posited.

Source

Journal of documentation. 58(2002) no.1, S.6-29

0.012003264 = product of:
  0.042011425 = sum of:
    0.009061059 = weight(_text_:information in 2122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009061059 = score(doc=2122,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 2122, 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=2122)
    0.032950368 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032950368 = score(doc=2122,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.11384433 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 2122, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2122)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Although images are visual information sources with little or no text associated with them, users still tend to use text to describe images and formulate queries. This is because digital libraries and search engines provide mostly text query options and rely on text annotations for representation and retrieval of the semantic content of images. While the main focus of image research is on indexing and retrieval of individual images, the general topic of image browsing and indexing, and retrieval of groups of images has not been adequately investigated. Comparisons of descriptions of individual images as well as labels of groups of images supplied by users using cognitive models are scarce. This work fills this gap. Using the basic level theory as a framework, a comparison of the descriptions of individual images and labels assigned to groups of images by 180 participants in three studies found a marked difference in their level of abstraction. Results confirm assertions by previous researchers in LIS and other fields that groups of images are labeled using more superordinate level terms while individual image descriptions are mainly at the basic level. Implications for design of image browsing interfaces, taxonomies, thesauri, and similar tools are discussed.

Source

Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.5, S.1741-1753

0.010275692 = product of:
  0.03596492 = sum of:
    0.009061059 = weight(_text_:information in 2347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009061059 = score(doc=2347,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 2347, 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=2347)
    0.02690386 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02690386 = score(doc=2347,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.11384433 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 2347, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2347)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Purpose - If an information retrieval system is going to be of value to the user then it must give meaning to the information which matches the meaning given to it by the user. The meaning given to music varies according to who is interpreting it - the author/composer, the performer, cataloguer or the listener - and this affects how music is organized and retrieved. This paper aims to examine the meaning of music, how meaning is communicated and suggests this may affect music retrieval. Design/methodology/approach - Musicology is used to define music and examine its functions leading to a discussion of how music has been organised and described. Various ways of establishing the meaning of music are reviewed, focussing on established musical analysis techniques. It is suggested that traditional methods are of limited use with digitised popular music. A discussion of semiotics and a review of semiotic analysis in western art music leads to a discussion of semiotics of popular music and examines ideas of Middleton, Stefani and Tagg. Findings - Agreeing that music exists when communication takes place, a discussion of selected communication models leads to the proposal of a revised version of Tagg's model, adjusting it to include listener feedback. Originality/value - The outcome of the analysis is a revised version of Tagg's communication model, adapted to reflect user feedback. It is suggested that this revised communication model reflects the way in which meaning is given to music.

0.00962913 = product of:
  0.033701956 = sum of:
    0.010873271 = weight(_text_:information in 4444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010873271 = score(doc=4444,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 4444, 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=4444)
    0.022828683 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022828683 = score(doc=4444,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11384433 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 4444, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4444)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The paper establishes a taxonomy of image-text relationships that reflects the ways that images and text interact. It is applicable to all subject areas and document types. The taxonomy was developed to answer the research question: how does an illustration relate to the text with which it is associated, or, what are the functions of illustration? Developed in a two-stage process - first, analysis of relevant research in children's literature, dictionary development, education, journalism, and library and information design and, second, subsequent application of the first version of the taxonomy to 954 image-text pairs in 45 Web pages (pages with educational content for children, online newspapers, and retail business pages) - the taxonomy identifies 49 relationships and groups them in three categories according to the closeness of the conceptual relationship between image and text. The paper uses qualitative content analysis to illustrate use of the taxonomy to analyze four image-text pairs in government publications and discusses the implications of the research for information retrieval and document design.

0.008594124 = product of:
  0.06015886 = sum of:
    0.06015886 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 837) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06015886 = score(doc=837,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.11384433 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.5284309 = fieldWeight in 837, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=837)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Purpose - To provide a better-informed view of the extent of the semantic gap in image retrieval, and the limited potential for bridging it offered by current semantic image retrieval techniques. Design/methodology/approach - Within an ongoing project, a broad spectrum of operational image retrieval activity has been surveyed, and, from a number of collaborating institutions, a test collection assembled which comprises user requests, the images selected in response to those requests, and their associated metadata. This has provided the evidence base upon which to make informed observations on the efficacy of cutting-edge automatic annotation techniques which seek to integrate the text-based and content-based image retrieval paradigms. Findings - Evidence from the real-world practice of image retrieval highlights the existence of a generic-specific continuum of object identification, and the incidence of temporal, spatial, significance and abstract concept facets, manifest in textual indexing and real-query scenarios but often having no directly visible presence in an image. These factors combine to limit the functionality of current semantic image retrieval techniques, which interpret only visible features at the generic extremity of the generic-specific continuum. Research limitations/implications - The project is concerned with the traditional image retrieval environment in which retrieval transactions are conducted on still images which form part of managed collections. The possibilities offered by ontological support for adding functionality to automatic annotation techniques are considered. Originality/value - The paper offers fresh insights into the challenge of migrating content-based image retrieval from the laboratory to the operational environment, informed by newly-assembled, comprehensive, live data.

0.008024275 = product of:
  0.028084962 = sum of:
    0.009061059 = weight(_text_:information in 1590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009061059 = score(doc=1590,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 1590, 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=1590)
    0.019023903 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019023903 = score(doc=1590,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11384433 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 1590, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1590)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The paper considers indexing an activity that deals with linguistic entities. It rests an the assumption that a theory of indexing should be based an a philosophy of language, because indexing is concerned with the linguistic representation of meaning. The paper consists of four sections: It begins with some basic considerations an the nature of indexing and the requirements for a theory an this; it is followed by a short review of the use of Wittgenstein's philosophy in LIS-literature; next is an analysis of Wittgenstein's work Philosophical Investigations; finally, we deduce a theory of indexing from this philosophy. Considering an indexing theory a theory of meaning entails that, for the purpose of retrieval, indexing is a representation of meaning. Therefore, an indexing theory is concerned with how words are used in the linguistic context. Furthermore, the indexing process is a communicative process containing an interpretative element. Through the philosophy of the later Wittgenstein, it is shown that language and meaning are publicly constituted entities. Since they form the basis of indexing, a theory hereof must take into account that no single actor can define the meaning of documents. Rather this is decided by the social, historical and linguistic context in which the document is produced, distributed and exchanged. Indexing must clarify and reflect these contexts.

Imprint

Medford, NJ : Information Today

Theme

Information

0.00599311 = product of:
  0.020975884 = sum of:
    0.0089699915 = weight(_text_:information in 5187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0089699915 = score(doc=5187,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 5187, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5187)
    0.0120058935 = product of:
      0.03601768 = sum of:
        0.03601768 = weight(_text_:29 in 5187) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03601768 = score(doc=5187,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13239008 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037635546 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 5187, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5187)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Chen arranged with an Art History instructor to require 20 medieval art images in papers received from 29 students. Participants completed a self administered presearch and postsearch questionnaire, and were interviewed after questionnaire analysis, in order to collect both the keywords and phrases they planned to use, and those actually used. Three MLIS student reviewers then mapped the queries to Enser and McGregor's four categories, Jorgensen's 12 classes, and Fidel's 12 feature data and object poles providing a degree of match on a seven point scale (one not at all to 7 exact). The reviewers give highest scores to Enser and McGregor;'s categories. Modifications to both the Enser and McGregor and Jorgensen schemes are suggested

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.3, S.260-273

0.0051105022 = product of:
  0.017886758 = sum of:
    0.007688564 = weight(_text_:information in 5589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007688564 = score(doc=5589,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5589, 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=5589)
    0.0101981945 = product of:
      0.030594582 = sum of:
        0.030594582 = weight(_text_:22 in 5589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030594582 = score(doc=5589,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13179328 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037635546 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5589, 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=5589)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Content analysis is a highly flexible research method that has been widely used in library and information science (LIS) studies with varying research goals and objectives. The research method is applied in qualitative, quantitative, and sometimes mixed modes of research frameworks and employs a wide range of analytical techniques to generate findings and put them into context. This article characterizes content analysis as a systematic, rigorous approach to analyzing documents obtained or generated in the course of research. It briefly describes the steps involved in content analysis, differentiates between quantitative and qualitative content analysis, and shows that content analysis serves the purposes of both quantitative research and qualitative research. The authors draw on selected LIS studies that have used content analysis to illustrate the concepts addressed in the article. The article also serves as a gateway to methodological books and articles that provide more detail about aspects of content analysis discussed only briefly in the article.

Source

Library trends. 55(2006) no.1, S.22-45

0.0050390568 = product of:
  0.017636698 = sum of:
    0.009061059 = weight(_text_:information in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009061059 = score(doc=2657,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 2657, 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=2657)
    0.008575639 = product of:
      0.025726916 = sum of:
        0.025726916 = weight(_text_:29 in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025726916 = score(doc=2657,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13239008 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037635546 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 2657, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2657)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

In this paper a framework for the construction and organization of knowledge organization and representation languages in the context of digital photograph collections is presented. It analyses exigencies of photographs as documentary objects, as well as several models of indexing, different proposals of languages and a theoretical revision of ontologies in this research field, in relation to visual documents. In considering the photograph as an analysis object, it is appropriate to study all its attributes: features, components or properties of an objeet that can be represented in an information processing system. The attributes which are related to visual features include cognitive and affective answers and elements that describe spatial, semantic, symbolic or emotional features about a photograph. In any case, it is necessary to treat: a) morphological and material attributes (emulsion, state of preservation); b) biographical attributes: (school or trend, publication or exhibition); c) attributes of content: what and how a photograph says something; d) relational attributes: visual documents establish relationships with other documents that can be analysed in order to understand them.

Date

29. 8.2004 16:20:55

Source

Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine

0.0049382094 = product of:
  0.017283732 = sum of:
    0.0036244236 = weight(_text_:information in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0036244236 = score(doc=1858,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.054858685 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
    0.013659308 = product of:
      0.02048896 = sum of:
        0.010290766 = weight(_text_:29 in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010290766 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13239008 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037635546 = queryNorm
            0.07773064 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
        0.0101981945 = weight(_text_:22 in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0101981945 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13179328 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037635546 = queryNorm
            0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

Footnote

Bade begins his discussion of errors in subject analysis by summarizing the contents of seven records containing what he considers to be egregious errors. The examples were drawn only from items that he has encountered in the course of his work. Five of the seven records were full-level ("I" level) records for Eastern European materials created between 1996 and 2000 in the OCLC WorldCat database. The final two examples were taken from records created by Bade himself over an unspecified period of time. Although he is to be commended for examining the actual items cataloged and for examining mostly items that he claims to have adequate linguistic and subject expertise to evaluate reliably, Bade's methodology has major flaws. First and foremost, the number of examples provided is completely inadequate to draw any conclusions about the extent of the problem. Although an in-depth qualitative analysis of a small number of records might have yielded some valuable insight into factors that contribute to errors in subject analysis, Bade provides no Information about the circumstances under which the live OCLC records he critiques were created. Instead, he offers simplistic explanations for the errors based solely an his own assumptions. He supplements his analysis of examples with an extremely brief survey of other studies regarding errors in subject analysis, which consists primarily of criticism of work done by Sheila Intner. In the end, it is impossible to draw any reliable conclusions about the nature or extent of errors in subject analysis found in records in shared bibliographic databases based an Bade's analysis. In the final third of the essay, Bade finally reveals his true concern: the deintellectualization of cataloging. It would strengthen the essay tremendously to present this as the primary premise from the very beginning, as this section offers glimpses of a compelling argument. Bade laments, "Many librarians simply do not sec cataloging as an intellectual activity requiring an educated mind" (p. 20). Commenting an recent trends in copy cataloging practice, he declares, "The disaster of our time is that this work is being done more and more by people who can neither evaluate nor correct imported errors and offen are forbidden from even thinking about it" (p. 26). Bade argues that the most valuable content found in catalog records is the intellectual content contributed by knowledgeable catalogers, and he asserts that to perform intellectually demanding tasks such as subject analysis reliably and effectively, catalogers must have the linguistic and subject knowledge required to gain at least a rudimentary understanding of the materials that they describe. He contends that requiring catalogers to quickly dispense with materials in unfamiliar languages and subjects clearly undermines their ability to perform the intellectual work of cataloging and leads to an increasing number of errors in the bibliographic records contributed to shared databases.
Arguing that catalogers need to work both quickly and accurately, Bade maintains that employing specialists is the most efficient and effective way to achieve this outcome. Far less compelling than these arguments are Bade's concluding remarks, in which he offers meager suggestions for correcting the problems as he sees them. Overall, this essay is little more than a curmudgeon's diatribe. Addressed primarily to catalogers and library administrators, the analysis presented is too superficial to assist practicing catalogers or cataloging managers in developing solutions to any systemic problems in current cataloging practice, and it presents too little evidence of pervasive problems to convince budget-conscious library administrators of a need to alter practice or to increase their investment in local cataloging operations. Indeed, the reliance upon anecdotal evidence and the apparent nit-picking that dominate the essay might tend to reinforce a negative image of catalogers in the minds of some. To his credit, Bade does provide an important reminder that it is the intellectual contributions made by thousands of erudite catalogers that have made shared cataloging a successful strategy for improving cataloging efficiency. This is an important point that often seems to be forgotten in academic libraries when focus centers an cutting costs. Had Bade focused more narrowly upon the issue of deintellectualization of cataloging and written a carefully structured essay to advance this argument, this essay might have been much more effective." - KO 29(2002) nos.3/4, S.236-237 (A. Sauperl)

Imprint

Urbana-Champaign, IL : Illinois University at Urbana-Champaign, Graduate School of Library and Information Science

0.0040312456 = product of:
  0.014109358 = sum of:
    0.0072488473 = weight(_text_:information in 2653) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0072488473 = score(doc=2653,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 2653, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2653)
    0.006860511 = product of:
      0.020581532 = sum of:
        0.020581532 = weight(_text_:29 in 2653) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020581532 = score(doc=2653,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13239008 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037635546 = queryNorm
            0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 2653, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2653)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Content

1. Introduction The document at hand is often regarded as the most important entity for analysis in the indexing situation. The indexer's focus is directed to the "entity and its faithful description" (Soergel, 1985, 227) and the indexer is advised to "stick to the text and the author's claims" (Lancaster, 2003, 37). The indexer's aim is to establish the subject matter based an an analysis of the document with the goal of representing the document as truthfully as possible and to ensure the subject representation's validity by remaining neutral and objective. To help indexers with their task they are guided towards particular and important attributes of the document that could help them determine the document's subject matter. The exact attributes the indexer is recommended to examine varies, but typical examples are: the title, the abstract, the table of contents, chapter headings, chapter subheadings, preface, introduction, foreword, the text itself, bibliographical references, index entries, illustrations, diagrams, and tables and their captions. The exact recommendations vary according to the type of document that is being indexed (monographs vs. periodical articles, for instance). It is clear that indexers should provide faithful descriptions, that indexers should represent the author's claims, and that the document's attributes are helpful points of analysis. However, indexers need much more guidance when determining the subject than simply the documents themselves. One approach that could be taken to handle the Situation is a useroriented approach in which it is argued that the indexer should ask, "how should I make this document ... visible to potential users? What terms should I use to convey its knowledge to those interested?" (Albrechtsen, 1993, 222). The basic idea is that indexers need to have the users' information needs and terminology in mind when determining the subject matter of documents as well as when selecting index terms.

Date

29. 8.2004 15:13:08

Source

Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine

0.0027177006 = product of:
  0.019023903 = sum of:
    0.019023903 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2508) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019023903 = score(doc=2508,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11384433 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 2508, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2508)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Die Erschließung von Bildern ist ein Gebiet, welches aufgrund der speziellen Eigenschaften des Mediums Bild von der Texterschließung zu unterscheiden ist. In Museen, Archiven, Universitäten und anderen Einrichtungen werden Bildsammlungen schon länger erschlossen. Viele Sammlungen bleiben jedoch unangetastet, da es für die Bilderschließung noch immer an passend zugeschnittenen Erschließungsinstrumenten und Erschließungsmethoden mangelt. Es existieren keine allgemeingültigen Standards, auch deshalb, weil die zu verzeichnenden Sammlungen vielen verschiedenen Instituten unterschiedlicher Wissenschaftsfächer angehören und sie dort unterschiedlichen Zwecken dienen. Diese Arbeit beginnt mit einer Einführung zur Kommunikationstheorie, um damit das Bewusstsein über die Komplexität der von Bildern vermittelten, visuellen Informationen zu schärfen. Anschließend werden Bildsammlungen typologisch sortiert, bevor im einzelnen auf die Theorie der Formal- und Inhaltserschließung von Bildern eingegangen wird. Dabei werden verschiedene Erschließungsinstrumente und -methoden, jeweils unter Einbindung von Beispielen, vorgestellt und ihre Anwendbarkeit für die Bilderschließung beurteilt. Der zweite Teil der Arbeit ist an das Projekt "Prometheus - Das verteilte digitale Bildarchiv für Forschung und Lehre" gebunden. Über Prometheus werden heterogen erschlossene, digitalisierte Bildbestände unter einer gemeinsamen Retrievaloberfläche verfügbar gemacht. Nach einer Einführung in das Projekt, die intendierten Ziele und die Vorstel lung der Techniken, welche das Retrieval über autonom erstellte Datenbanken ermöglichen, werden praktizierte Erschließungsmethoden einzelner, an Prometheus beteiligter Institute, beispielhaft dargestellt. Die sich zuvor in den verschiedenen Kapiteln andeutenden oder schon festgestellten Problematiken der Bilderschließung werden zum Schluss noch einmal zusammengefasst und diskutiert, wobei sie verschiedenen Ebenen, weshalb sie auftreten und worauf sie sich auswirken, zugeordnet werden können.

0.0027177006 = product of:
  0.019023903 = sum of:
    0.019023903 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019023903 = score(doc=2871,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.11384433 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 2871, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2871)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Die Erschließung von Bildern ist ein Gebiet, welches aufgrund der speziellen Eigenschaften des Mediums Bild von der Texterschließung zu unterscheiden ist. In Museen, Archiven, Universitäten und anderen Einrichtungen werden Bildsammlungen schon länger erschlossen. Viele Sammlungen bleiben jedoch unangetastet, da es für die Bilderschließung noch immer an passend zugeschnittenen Erschließungsinstrumenten und Erschließungsmethoden mangelt. Es existieren keine allgemeingültigen Standards, auch deshalb, weil die zu verzeichnenden Sammlungen vielen verschiedenen Instituten unterschiedlicher Wissenschaftsfächer angehören und sie dort unterschiedlichen Zwecken dienen. Diese Arbeit beginnt mit einer Einführung zur Kommunikationstheorie, um damit das Bewusstsein über die Komplexität der von Bildern vermittelten, visuellen Informationen zu schärfen. Anschließend werden Bildsammlungen typologisch sortiert, bevor im einzelnen auf die Theorie der Formal- und Inhaltserschließung von Bildern eingegangen wird. Dabei werden verschiedene Erschließungsinstrumente und -methoden, jeweils unter Einbindung von Beispielen, vorgestellt und ihre Anwendbarkeit für die Bilderschließung beurteilt. Der zweite Teil der Arbeit ist an das Projekt "Prometheus - Das verteilte digitale Bildarchiv für Forschung und Lehre" gebunden. Über Prometheus werden heterogen erschlossene, digitalisierte Bildbestände unter einer gemeinsamen Retrievaloberfläche verfügbar gemacht. Nach einer Einführung in das Projekt, die intendierten Ziele und die Vorstel lung der Techniken, welche das Retrieval über autonom erstellte Datenbanken ermöglichen, werden praktizierte Erschließungsmethoden einzelner, an Prometheus beteiligter Institute, beispielhaft dargestellt. Die sich zuvor in den verschiedenen Kapiteln andeutenden oder schon festgestellten Problematiken der Bilderschließung werden zum Schluss noch einmal zusammengefasst und diskutiert, wobei sie verschiedenen Ebenen, weshalb sie auftreten und worauf sie sich auswirken, zugeordnet werden können.

0.0025552511 = product of:
  0.008943379 = sum of:
    0.003844282 = weight(_text_:information in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.003844282 = score(doc=2293,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.058186423 = fieldWeight in 2293, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2293)
    0.0050990973 = product of:
      0.015297291 = sum of:
        0.015297291 = weight(_text_:22 in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015297291 = score(doc=2293,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13179328 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037635546 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 2293, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2293)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Date

27. 9.2005 14:22:19

Footnote

This document will be particularly useful to subject cataloguing teachers and trainers who could use the model to design case descriptions and exercises. We believe it is an accurate description of the reality of subject cataloguing today. But now that we know how things are dope, the next interesting question may be: Is that the best way? Is there a better, more efficient, way to do things? We can only hope that Dr. Sauperl will soon provide her own view of methods and techniques that could improve the flow of work or address the cataloguers' concern as to the lack of feedback an their work. Her several excellent suggestions for further research in this area all build an bits and pieces of what is done already, and stay well away from what could be done by the various actors in the area, from the designers of controlled vocabularies and authority files to those who use these tools an a daily basis to index, classify, or search for information."

0.0021967327 = product of:
  0.015377128 = sum of:
    0.015377128 = weight(_text_:information in 213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015377128 = score(doc=213,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 213, 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=213)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Die verfügbare multimediale Information nimmt stetig zu, nicht zuletzt durch die Tag für Tag wachsende Zahl an neuer Information im Internet. Damit man dieser Flut Herr werden und diese Information wieder abrufbar machen kann, muss sie annotiert und geeignet in Datenbanken abgelegt werden. Hier besteht das Problem der manuellen Annotation, das einerseits durch die Ermüdung aufgrund der Routinearbeit und andererseits durch die Subjektivität des Annotierenden zu Fehlern in der Annotation führen kann. Unterstützende Systeme, die dem Dokumentar genau diese Routinearbeit abnehmen, können hier bis zu einem gewissen Grad Abhilfe schaffen. Die wissenschaftliche Erschließung von beispielsweise filmbeiträgen wird der Dokumentar zwar immer noch selbst machen müssen und auch sollen, aber die Erkennung und Dokumentation von sog. Einstellungsgrenzen kann durchaus automatisch mit Unterstützung eines Rechners geschehen. In diesem Beitrag zeigen wir anhand von Projekten, die wir durchgeführt haben, wie weit diese Unterstützung des Dokumentars bei der Annotation von Bildern und Videos gehen kann

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 53(2002) H.1, S.15-21

0.0017151277 = product of:
  0.0120058935 = sum of:
    0.0120058935 = product of:
      0.03601768 = sum of:
        0.03601768 = weight(_text_:29 in 5497) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03601768 = score(doc=5497,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13239008 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037635546 = queryNorm
            0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 5497, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5497)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

30. 7.2006 14:29:04

0.0015853554 = product of:
  0.011097487 = sum of:
    0.011097487 = weight(_text_:information in 2069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011097487 = score(doc=2069,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.066068366 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.037635546 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 2069, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2069)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The problem of multiple interpretations of meaning in the indexing process has been mostly avoided by information scientists. Among the few who have addressed this question are Clare Beghtol and Jens Erik Mai. Their findings and findings of other researchers in the area of information science, social psychology, and psycholinguistics indicate that the source of the problem might lie in the background and culture of each indexer or cataloger. Are the catalogers aware of the problem? A general model of the indexing process was developed from observations and interviews of 12 catalogers in three American academic libraries. The model is illustrated with a hypothetical cataloger's process. The study with catalogers revealed that catalogers are aware of the author's, the user's, and their own meaning, but do not try to accommodate them all. On the other hand, they make every effort to build common ground with catalog users by studying documents related to the document being cataloged, and by considering catalog records and subject headings related to the subject identified in the document being cataloged. They try to build common ground with other catalogers by using cataloging tools and by inferring unstated rules of cataloging from examples in the catalogs.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 55(2004) no.1, S.55-63

0.0014701096 = product of:
  0.010290766 = sum of:
    0.010290766 = product of:
      0.030872298 = sum of:
        0.030872298 = weight(_text_:29 in 1751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030872298 = score(doc=1751,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13239008 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037635546 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 1751, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1751)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

24. 3.2008 12:29:34