Search (189 results, page 3 of 10)

0.022112938 = product of:
  0.044225875 = sum of:
    0.019191816 = weight(_text_:information in 3021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019191816 = score(doc=3021,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 3021, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3021)
    0.025034059 = product of:
      0.050068118 = sum of:
        0.050068118 = weight(_text_:organization in 3021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050068118 = score(doc=3021,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.27854347 = fieldWeight in 3021, 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=3021)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Classification is a transdisciplinary activity that occurs during all human pursuits. Classificatory activity, however, serves different purposes in different situations. In information retrieval, the primary purpose of classification is to find knowledge that already exists, but one of the purposes of classification in other fields is to discover new knowledge. In this paper, classifications for information retrieval are called "professional" classifications because they are devised by people who have a professional interest in classification, and classifications for knowledge discovery are called "naive" classifications because they are devised by people who have no particular interest in studying classification as an end in itself. This paper compares the overall purposes and methods of these two kinds of classifications and provides a general model of the relationships between the two kinds of classificatory activity in the context of information studies. This model addresses issues of the influence of scholarly activity and communication an the creation and revision of classifications for the purposes of information retrieval and for the purposes of knowledge discovery. Further comparisons elucidate the relationships between the universality of classificatory methods and the specific purposes served by naive and professional classification systems.

Footnote

Vgl. Stellungnahme dazu in: Hjoerland, B., J. Nicolaisen: Scientific and scholarly classifications are not "naïve": a comment to Beghtol (2003). In: Knowledge organization. 31(2004) no.1, S.55-61.

Source

Knowledge organization. 30(2003) no.2, S.64-73

0.021399152 = product of:
  0.042798303 = sum of:
    0.01213797 = weight(_text_:information in 323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01213797 = score(doc=323,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 323, 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=323)
    0.030660335 = product of:
      0.06132067 = sum of:
        0.06132067 = weight(_text_:organization in 323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06132067 = score(doc=323,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.34114468 = fieldWeight in 323, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=323)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The spread of many new media and formats is changing the scenario faced by knowledge organizers: as printed monographs are not the only standard form of knowledge carrier anymore, the traditional kind of knowledge organization (KO) systems based on academic disciplines is put into question. A sounder foundation can be provided by an analysis of the different dimensions concurring to form the content of any knowledge item-what Brian Vickery described as the steps "from the world to the classifier." The ultimate referents of documents are the phenomena of the real world, that can be ordered by ontology, the study of what exists. Phenomena coexist in subjects with the perspectives by which they are considered, pertaining to epistemology, and with the formal features of knowledge carriers, adding a further, pragmatic layer. All these dimensions can be accounted for in metadata, but are often done so in mixed ways, making indexes less rigorous and interoperable. For example, while facet analysis was originally developed for subject indexing, many "faceted" interfaces today mix subject facets with form facets, and schemes presented as "ontologies" for the "semantic Web" also code for non-semantic information. In bibliographic classifications, phenomena are often confused with the disciplines dealing with them, the latter being assumed to be the most useful starting point, for users will have either one or another perspective. A general citation order of dimensions- phenomena, perspective, carrier-is recommended, helping to concentrate most relevant information at the beginning of headings.

Source

Knowledge organization. 39(2012) no.4, S.268-275

0.021399152 = product of:
  0.042798303 = sum of:
    0.01213797 = weight(_text_:information in 423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01213797 = score(doc=423,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 423, 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=423)
    0.030660335 = product of:
      0.06132067 = sum of:
        0.06132067 = weight(_text_:organization in 423) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06132067 = score(doc=423,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.34114468 = fieldWeight in 423, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=423)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The Library of Congress is a federal institution that occupies a critical space where medical, social science, political, literary, and other discourses are collected, arranged, and disseminated to Congress and the public. LC plays a vital part in discipline creation and maintenance, as it actively reproduces specific discourses, while silencing others, such as those from the humanities, social sciences, and the general public. Alternatively, social tagging seems to disregard conventions of disciplinarity and allows much more diversity of representations. Tagging may provide important insight for organizing materials in research libraries, as choices between single disciplines are no longer necessary and voices from various fields and audiences can name resources using their own terms, whether they prefer medical/technical jargon or everyday words. As the academy moves more toward interdisciplinary/transdisciplinary studies and aims to find the intersections across political, social, scientific, and cultural phenomena, the implications and effects of library organization based on classes and subjects needs to be interrogated.

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_i.pdf.

Source

Knowledge organization. 39(2012) no.5, S.370-376

0.021027675 = product of:
  0.04205535 = sum of:
    0.013732546 = weight(_text_:information in 572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013732546 = score(doc=572,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 572, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=572)
    0.028322803 = product of:
      0.056645606 = sum of:
        0.056645606 = weight(_text_:organization in 572) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056645606 = score(doc=572,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.31513596 = fieldWeight in 572, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=572)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Imprint

The Hague : International Federation for Information and Documentation (FID)

Source

From classification to 'knowledge organization': Dorking revisited or 'past is prelude'. A collection of reprints to commemorate the firty year span between the Dorking Conference (First International Study Conference on Classification Research 1957) and the Sixth International Study Conference on Classification Research (London 1997). Ed.: A. Gilchrist

0.021027675 = product of:
  0.04205535 = sum of:
    0.013732546 = weight(_text_:information in 3017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013732546 = score(doc=3017,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 3017, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3017)
    0.028322803 = product of:
      0.056645606 = sum of:
        0.056645606 = weight(_text_:organization in 3017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056645606 = score(doc=3017,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.31513596 = fieldWeight in 3017, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3017)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper surveys classification research literature, discusses various classification theories, and shows that the focus has traditionally been an establishing a scientific foundation for classification research. This paper argues that a shift has taken place, and suggests that contemporary classification research focus an contextual information as the guide for the design and construction of classification schemes.

Source

Knowledge organization. 31(2004) no.1, S.39-48

0.021027675 = product of:
  0.04205535 = sum of:
    0.013732546 = weight(_text_:information in 5478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013732546 = score(doc=5478,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 5478, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5478)
    0.028322803 = product of:
      0.056645606 = sum of:
        0.056645606 = weight(_text_:organization in 5478) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056645606 = score(doc=5478,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.31513596 = fieldWeight in 5478, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5478)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

Beitrag eines Themenheftes "Knowledge organization and classification in international information retrieval"

0.020887807 = product of:
  0.041775614 = sum of:
    0.01699316 = weight(_text_:information in 5717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01699316 = score(doc=5717,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 5717, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5717)
    0.024782453 = product of:
      0.049564905 = sum of:
        0.049564905 = weight(_text_:organization in 5717) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049564905 = score(doc=5717,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.27574396 = fieldWeight in 5717, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5717)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Bibliographic classification is among the core activities of Library & Information Science that brings order and proper management to the holdings of a library. Compared to printed media, digital collections present numerous challenges regarding their preservation, curation, organization and resource discovery & access. Therefore, true native perspective is needed to be adopted for bibliographic classification in digital environments. In this research article, we have investigated and reported different approaches to bibliographic classification of digital collections. The article also contributes two evaluation frameworks that evaluate the existing classification schemes and systems. The article presents a bird's-eye view for researchers in reaching a generalized and holistic approach towards bibliographic classification research, where new research avenues have been identified.

Source

Information Technology and Libraries. 36(2017) no.3, S.48-77

0.020887807 = product of:
  0.041775614 = sum of:
    0.01699316 = weight(_text_:information in 783) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01699316 = score(doc=783,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 783, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=783)
    0.024782453 = product of:
      0.049564905 = sum of:
        0.049564905 = weight(_text_:organization in 783) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049564905 = score(doc=783,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.27574396 = fieldWeight in 783, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=783)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Dieser Beitrag nimmt eine informationswissenschaftliche Perspektive ein und betrachtet das Phänomen der Klassifikation als Methode und System der Wissensorganisation. Ein Klassifikationssystem wird dabei als Wissensorganisationssystem (engl. knowledge organization system) verstanden, das vor allem im Bereich der Information und Dokumentation zum Einsatz kommt, um dokumentarische Bezugseinheiten (DBE) mit einem kontrollierten Vokabular zu beschreiben (s. Kapitel B 1 Einführung Wissensorganisation). Als eine solche Dokumentationssprache zeichnet sich ein Klassifikationssystem typischerweise durch seine systematische Ordnung aus und dient der inhaltlichen Groberschließung, eignet sich aber auch als Aufstellungssystematik und Hilfsmittel bei der Recherche wie etwa als systematischer Sucheinstieg oder thematischer Filter für Treffermengen. Beim Information Retrieval liegt die Stärke der klassifikatorischen Erschließung durch das hohe Abstraktionsniveau in Überblicks- und Vollständigkeitsrecherchen.

0.02052752 = product of:
  0.04105504 = sum of:
    0.013732546 = weight(_text_:information in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013732546 = score(doc=7242,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 7242, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7242)
    0.027322493 = product of:
      0.054644987 = sum of:
        0.054644987 = weight(_text_:22 in 7242) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054644987 = score(doc=7242,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 7242, 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=7242)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

22. 4.1997 21:10:19

0.020170141 = product of:
  0.040340282 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 894) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=894,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 894, 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=894)
    0.030040871 = product of:
      0.060081743 = sum of:
        0.060081743 = weight(_text_:organization in 894) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060081743 = score(doc=894,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.33425218 = fieldWeight in 894, 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=894)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Several authors emphasize the need for a change in classification theory due to the influence of a dogmatic and monistic ontology supported by an outdated essentialism. These claims tend to focus on the fallibility of knowledge, the need for a pluralistic view, and the theoretical burden of observations. Regardless of the legitimacy of these concerns, there is the risk, when not moderate, to fall into the opposite relativistic extreme. Based on a narrative review of the literature, we aim to reflectively discuss the theoretical foundations that can serve as a basis for a realist position supporting pluralistic ontological classifications. The goal is to show that, against rather conventional solutions, objective scientific-based approaches to natural classifications are presented to be viable, allowing a proper distinction between ontological and taxonomic questions. Supported by critical scientific realism, we consider that such an approach is suitable for the development of ontological Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS). We believe that ontological perspectivism can provide the necessary adaptation to the different granularities of reality.

Source

Journal of information science. 54(2023) no.x, S.xx-xx

0.019621588 = product of:
  0.039243177 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=2509,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2509, 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=2509)
    0.030660335 = product of:
      0.06132067 = sum of:
        0.06132067 = weight(_text_:organization in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06132067 = score(doc=2509,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.34114468 = fieldWeight in 2509, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2509)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

Perception is a crucial element in the viability of any knowledge organization system because it acts as a filter that provides contextual information about phenomena, including potential categorical membership. Perception is moderated culturally, but "social" systems exercise little or no cultural conformity. "Every day classification" is rife throughout human experience; but classification arises as a system of formal constraints that embody cultural assumptions about the categories that are the products of human cognition. Noesis is a perceptual component of Husserl's phenomenological approach to human experience. How we perceive a thing is filtered by our experiential feelings about it. The purpose of this research is to increase understanding of the role of cognition in every day classification by developing a fuller profile of perception. Photographs of mailboxes (a mundane, every-day example) from different locales are compared to demonstrate the noetic process. Tag clouds are analyzed to demonstrate the kinds of perceptual differences that suggest different user perceptions among those contributing tags.

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.11

Source

Culture and identity in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Tenth International ISKO Conference 5-8 August 2008, Montreal, Canada. Ed. by Clément Arsenault and Joseph T. Tennis

0.018586013 = product of:
  0.037172027 = sum of:
    0.01213797 = weight(_text_:information in 2281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01213797 = score(doc=2281,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 2281, 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=2281)
    0.025034059 = product of:
      0.050068118 = sum of:
        0.050068118 = weight(_text_:organization in 2281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050068118 = score(doc=2281,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.27854347 = fieldWeight in 2281, 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=2281)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

For individuals whose memory and language are intact, making sense of unfamiliar information or objects is a process of matching what is unknown, to what is known through previous learning or experience. The unfamiliar is linked to clusters or categories of the familiar, identifying what is "like" or "nearly like" and excluding all others (De Mey 1982). Most commonly, these are categories on which there is general agreement, sometimes collocated under established terms, labels, or shared naming devices. Classification systems are built on the basis of shared understandings of human knowledge and culture. When memory and/or language are impaired, how does such contextualizing and categorizing occur? Since perception is individual, can a person with cognitive impairment "make sense" of information, an object, a situation, using alternative modes of expression that are less or not language-dependent? This paper reports on preliminary results from a pilot study undertaken as part of exploratory mixed methods research examining the sense-making, sorting, categorization, and recall strategies of individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) resulting from early stage dementia.

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.11

Source

Culture and identity in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Tenth International ISKO Conference 5-8 August 2008, Montreal, Canada. Ed. by Clément Arsenault and Joseph T. Tennis

0.018399216 = product of:
  0.036798432 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 1155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=1155,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1155, 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=1155)
    0.024782453 = product of:
      0.049564905 = sum of:
        0.049564905 = weight(_text_:organization in 1155) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049564905 = score(doc=1155,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.27574396 = fieldWeight in 1155, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1155)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Series

Information science and knowledge management; vol.2

Source

Relationships in the organization of knowledge. Eds.: Bean, C.A. u. R. Green

0.017903835 = product of:
  0.03580767 = sum of:
    0.014565565 = weight(_text_:information in 1138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014565565 = score(doc=1138,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 1138, 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=1138)
    0.021242103 = product of:
      0.042484205 = sum of:
        0.042484205 = weight(_text_:organization in 1138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042484205 = score(doc=1138,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23635197 = fieldWeight in 1138, 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=1138)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In a changing information environment, we need to reassess each element of bibliographic control, including classification theories and systems. Every classification system is a theoretical construct imposed an "reality." The classificatory relationships that are assumed to be valuable have generally received less attention than the topics included in the systems. Relationships are functions of both the syntactic and semantic axes of classification systems, and both explicit and implicit relationships are discussed. Examples are drawn from a number of different systems, both bibliographic and non-bibliographic, and the cultural warrant (i. e., the sociocultural context) of classification systems is examined. The part-whole relationship is discussed as an example of a universally valid concept that is treated as a component of the cultural warrant of a classification system.

Series

Information science and knowledge management; vol.2

Source

Relationships in the organization of knowledge. Eds.: Bean, C.A. u. R. Green

0.017903835 = product of:
  0.03580767 = sum of:
    0.014565565 = weight(_text_:information in 2045) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014565565 = score(doc=2045,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 2045, 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=2045)
    0.021242103 = product of:
      0.042484205 = sum of:
        0.042484205 = weight(_text_:organization in 2045) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042484205 = score(doc=2045,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23635197 = fieldWeight in 2045, 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=2045)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper describes the Postulations Based Approach to Facet Classification as articulated by S. R. Ranganathan for knowledge classification and for the design of a facet scheme of library classification, and the Entity-Relationship Data Modelling and Analysis Approach set by Peter Pin-Sen Chen; both further modified by other experts. Efforts have been made to show the parallelism between the two approaches. It points out that, both the theoretical approaches are concerned with the organisation of knowledge or information, and apply almost similar theoretical principles, concepts, and techniques for the design and development of a framework for the organisation of knowledge, information, or data, in their respective domains. It states that both the approaches are complementary and supplementary to each other. The paper also argues that Ranganathan's postulations based approach or analytico-synthetic approach to knowledge classification can be applied for developing efficient data retrieval systems in addition to the data analysis and modelling domain.

Source

Knowledge organization. 30(2003) no.1, S.1-19

0.01680845 = product of:
  0.0336169 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=2650,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2650, 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=2650)
    0.025034059 = product of:
      0.050068118 = sum of:
        0.050068118 = weight(_text_:organization in 2650) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050068118 = score(doc=2650,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.27854347 = fieldWeight in 2650, 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=2650)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.9

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

0.01680845 = product of:
  0.0336169 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 3183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=3183,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3183, 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=3183)
    0.025034059 = product of:
      0.050068118 = sum of:
        0.050068118 = weight(_text_:organization in 3183) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050068118 = score(doc=3183,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.27854347 = fieldWeight in 3183, 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=3183)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Division is obviously important to Knowledge Organization. Typically, an organizational infrastructure might acknowledge three types of connecting relationships: class hierarchies, where some classes are subclasses of others, partitive hierarchies, where some items are parts of others, and instantiation, where some items are members of some classes (see Z39.19 ANSI/NISO 2005 as an example). The first two of these involve division (the third, instantiation, does not involve division). Logical division would usually be a part of hierarchical classification systems, which, in turn, are central to shelving in libraries, to subject classification schemes, to controlled vocabularies, and to thesauri. Partitive hierarchies, and partitive division, are often essential to controlled vocabularies, thesauri, and subject tagging systems. Partitive hierarchies also relate to the bearers of information; for example, a journal would typically have its component articles as parts and, in turn, they might have sections as their parts, and, of course, components might be arrived at by partitive division (see Tillett 2009 as an illustration). Finally, verbal division, disambiguating homographs, is basic to controlled vocabularies. Thus Division is a broad and relevant topic. This article, though, is going to focus on Logical Division.

Source

ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowledge Organization, ed. by B. Hjoerland. [http://www.isko.org/cyclo/logical_division]

0.01680845 = product of:
  0.0336169 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 3869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=3869,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3869, 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=3869)
    0.025034059 = product of:
      0.050068118 = sum of:
        0.050068118 = weight(_text_:organization in 3869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050068118 = score(doc=3869,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.27854347 = fieldWeight in 3869, 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=3869)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

The changes in KO systems induced by sociocultural influences may include those in both classificatory principles and cultural features. The proposed study will examine the Korean Decimal Classification (KDC)'s adaptation of the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) by comparing the two systems. This case manifests the sociocultural influences on KOSs in a cross-cultural context. Therefore, the study aims at an in-depth investigation of sociocultural influences by situating a KOS in a cross-cultural environment and examining the dynamics between two classification systems designed to organize information resources in two distinct sociocultural contexts. As a preceding stage of the comparison, the analysis was conducted on the changes that result from the meeting of different sociocultural feature in a descriptive method. The analysis aims to identify variations between the two schemes in comparison of the knowledge structures of the two classifications, in terms of the quantity of class numbers that represent concepts and their relationships in each of the individual main classes. The most effective analytic strategy to show the patterns of the comparison was visualizations of similarities and differences between the two systems. Increasing or decreasing tendencies in the class through various editions were analyzed. Comparing the compositions of the main classes and distributions of concepts in the KDC and DDC discloses the differences in their knowledge structures empirically. This phase of quantitative analysis and visualizing techniques generates empirical evidence leading to interpretation.

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.

0.01680845 = product of:
  0.0336169 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 4308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=4308,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4308, 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=4308)
    0.025034059 = product of:
      0.050068118 = sum of:
        0.050068118 = weight(_text_:organization in 4308) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050068118 = score(doc=4308,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.27854347 = fieldWeight in 4308, 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=4308)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

One of the main topics of scientific research, classification is the operation consisting of distributing objects in classes or groups which are, in general, less numerous than them. From Antiquity to the Classical Age, it has a long history where philosophers (Aristotle), and natural scientists (Linnaeus), took a great part. But from the nineteenth century (with the growth of chemistry and information science) and the twentieth century (with the arrival of mathematical models and computer science), mathematics (especially theory of orders and theory of graphs or hypergraphs) allows us to compute all the possible partitions, chains of partitions, covers, hypergraphs or systems of classes we can construct on a domain. In spite of these advances, most of classifications are still based on the evaluation of ressemblances between objects that constitute the empirical data. However, all these classifications remain, for technical and epistemological reasons we detail below, very unstable ones. We lack a real algebra of classifications, which could explain their properties and the relations existing between them. Though the aim of a general theory of classifications is surely a wishful thought, some recent conjecture gives the hope that the existence of a metaclassification (or classification of all classification schemes) is possible

Series

Reviews of concepts in knowledge organization

Source

Knowledge organization. 45(2018) no.2, S.184-201

0.015913848 = product of:
  0.031827696 = sum of:
    0.01816645 = weight(_text_:information in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01816645 = score(doc=2346,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.20526241 = fieldWeight in 2346, 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=2346)
    0.013661247 = product of:
      0.027322493 = sum of:
        0.027322493 = weight(_text_:22 in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027322493 = score(doc=2346,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2346, 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=2346)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Purpose - Potential and benefits of classification schemes and thesauri in building organizational taxonomies cannot be fully utilized by organizations. Empirical data of building an organizational taxonomy by the top-down approach of using classification schemes and thesauri appear to be lacking. The paper seeks to make a contribution in this regard. Design/methodology/approach - A case study of building an organizational taxonomy was conducted in the information studies domain for the Division of Information Studies at Nanyang Technology University, Singapore. The taxonomy was built by using the Dewey Decimal Classification, the Information Science Taxonomy, two information systems taxonomies, and three thesauri (ASIS&T, LISA, and ERIC). Findings - Classification schemes and thesauri were found to be helpful in creating the structure and categories related to the subject facet of the taxonomy, but organizational community sources had to be consulted and several methods had to be employed. The organizational activities and stakeholders' needs had to be identified to determine the objectives, facets, and the subject coverage of the taxonomy. Main categories were determined by identifying the stakeholders' interests and consulting organizational community sources and domain taxonomies. Category terms were selected from terminologies of classification schemes, domain taxonomies, and thesauri against the stakeholders' interests. Hierarchical structures of the main categories were constructed in line with the stakeholders' perspectives and the navigational role taking advantage of structures/term relationships from classification schemes and thesauri. Categories were determined in line with the concepts and the hierarchical levels. Format of categories were uniformed according to a commonly used standard. The consistency principle was employed to make the taxonomy structure and categories neater. Validation of the draft taxonomy through consultations with the stakeholders further refined the taxonomy. Originality/value - No similar study could be traced in the literature. The steps and methods used in the taxonomy development, and the information studies taxonomy itself, will be helpful for library and information schools and other similar organizations in their effort to develop taxonomies for organizing content and aiding navigation on organizational sites.

Date

7.11.2008 15:22:04

Theme

Information Resources Management