Search (38 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × author_ss:"Hjoerland, B."
  1. Hjoerland, B.: Table of contents (ToC) (2022) 0.04 
    0.035419054 = product of:
  0.07083811 = sum of:
    0.07083811 = sum of:
      0.035324864 = weight(_text_:2 in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035324864 = score(doc=1096,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05242341 = queryNorm
          0.27285388 = fieldWeight in 1096, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1096)
      0.03551324 = weight(_text_:22 in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03551324 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18357785 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05242341 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1096, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1096)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    Vgl.: https://www.nomos-elibrary.de/10.5771/0943-7444-2022-2/ko-knowledge-organization-jahrgang-49-2022-heft-2?page=1.
    Date
    2. 9.2014 19:19:40
    18.11.2023 13:47:22
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 49(2022) no.2, S.98 - 120
  2. Hjoerland, B.: Classical databases and knowledge organisation : a case for Boolean retrieval and human decision-making during search (2014) 0.03 
    0.026587836 = product of:
  0.053175673 = sum of:
    0.053175673 = sum of:
      0.017662432 = weight(_text_:2 in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.017662432 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05242341 = queryNorm
          0.13642694 = fieldWeight in 1398, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1398)
      0.03551324 = weight(_text_:22 in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03551324 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18357785 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05242341 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1398, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1398)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This paper considers classical bibliographic databases based on the Boolean retrieval model (for example MEDLINE and PsycInfo). This model is challenged by modern search engines and information retrieval (IR) researchers, who often consider Boolean retrieval as a less efficient approach. This speech examines this claim and argues for the continued value of Boolean systems, which implies two further issues: (1) the important role of human expertise in searching (expert searchers and "information literacy") and (2) the role of knowledge organization (KO) in the design and use of classical databases, including controlled vocabularies and human indexing. An underlying issue is the kind of retrieval system for which one should aim. It is suggested that Julian Warner's (2010) differentiation between the computer science traditions, aiming at automatically transforming queries into (ranked) sets of relevant documents, and an older library-orientated tradition aiming at increasing the "selection power" of users seems important. The Boolean retrieval model is important in order to provide users with the power to make informed searches and have full control over what is found and what is not found. These issues may also have important implications for the maintenance of information science and KO as research fields as well as for the information profession as a profession in its own right.
    Source
    Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik
  3. Hjoerland, B.: ¬The controversy over the concept of information : a rejoinder to Professor Bates (2009) 0.02 
    0.015122923 = product of:
  0.030245846 = sum of:
    0.030245846 = sum of:
      0.012489226 = weight(_text_:2 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.012489226 = score(doc=2748,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05242341 = queryNorm
          0.09646841 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
      0.01775662 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01775662 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18357785 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05242341 = queryNorm
          0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    "This letter considers some main arguments in Professor Bates' article (2008), which is part of our former debate (Bates, 2005,2006; Hjoerland, 2007). Bates (2008) does not write much to restate or enlarge on her theoretical position but is mostly arguing about what she claims Hjorland (2007) ignored or misinterpreted in her two articles. Bates (2008, p. 842) wrote that my arguments did not reflect "a standard of coherence, consistency, and logic that is expected of an argument presented in a scientific journal." My argumentation below will refute this statement. This controversy is whether information should be understood as a subjective phenomenon (alone), as an objective phenomenon (alone), or as a combined objective and a subjective phenomenon ("having it both ways"). Bates (2006) defined "information" (sometimes, e.g., termed "information 1," p. 1042) as an objective phenomenon and "information 2" as a subjective phenomenon. However, sometimes the term "information" is also used as a synonym for "information 2," e.g., "the term information is understood to refer to one or both senses" (p. 1042). Thus, Professor Bates is not consistent in using the terminology that she herself introduces, and confusion in this controversy may be caused by Professor Bates' ambiguity in her use of the term "information." Bates (2006, p. 1033) defined information as an objective phenomenon by joining a definition by Edwin Parker: "Information is the pattern of organization of matter and energy." The argument in Hjoerland (2007) is, by contrast, that information should be understood as a subjective phenomenon all the way down: That neither the objective definition of information nor "having it both ways" is fruitful. This is expressed, for example, by joining Karpatschof's (2000) definition of information as a physical signal relative to a certain release mechanism, which implies that information is not something objective that can be understood independently of an observer or independently of other kinds of mechanism that are programmed to be sensitive to specific attributes of a signal: There are many differences in the world, and each of them is potentially informative in given situations. Regarding Parker's definition, "patterns of organization of matter and energy" are no more than that until they inform somebody about something. When they inform somebody about something, they may be considered information. The following quote is part of the argumentation in Bates (2008): "He contrasts my definition of information as 'observer-independent' with his position that information is 'situational' and adds a list of respected names on the situational side (Hjoerland, 2007, p. 1448). What this sentence, and much of the remainder of his argument, ignores is the fact that my approach accounts for both an observer-independent and a contextual, situational sense of information." Yes, it is correct that I mostly concentrated on refuting Bates' objective definition of information. It is as if Bates expects an overall appraisal of her work rather than providing a specific analysis of the points on which there are disagreements. I see Bates' "having it both ways": a symptom of inconsistence in argumentation.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 18:13:27
  4. Hjoerland, B.; Christensen, F.S.: Work tasks and socio-cognitive relevance : a specific example (2002) 0.01 
    0.012429634 = product of:
  0.024859268 = sum of:
    0.024859268 = product of:
      0.049718536 = sum of:
        0.049718536 = weight(_text_:22 in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049718536 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18357785 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5237, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5237)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    21. 7.2006 14:11:22
  5. Hjoerland, B.: Theories of knowledge organization - theories of knowledge (2017) 0.01 
    0.012429634 = product of:
  0.024859268 = sum of:
    0.024859268 = product of:
      0.049718536 = sum of:
        0.049718536 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049718536 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18357785 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Pages
    S.22-36
  6. Hjoerland, B.: Subject representation and information seeking : contributions to a theory based on the theory of knowledge (1993) 0.01 
    0.012363703 = product of:
  0.024727406 = sum of:
    0.024727406 = product of:
      0.049454812 = sum of:
        0.049454812 = weight(_text_:2 in 7555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049454812 = score(doc=7555,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.38199544 = fieldWeight in 7555, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7555)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Footnote
    [Dissertation]. - Zusammenfassung in: Knowledge organization 21(1994) no.2, S.94-98
  7. Hjoerland, B.: Terminology (2023) 0.01 
    0.012363703 = product of:
  0.024727406 = sum of:
    0.024727406 = product of:
      0.049454812 = sum of:
        0.049454812 = weight(_text_:2 in 1122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049454812 = score(doc=1122,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.38199544 = fieldWeight in 1122, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1122)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    Vgl.: https://www.nomos-elibrary.de/10.5771/0943-7444-2023-2/ko-knowledge-organization-jahrgang-50-2023-heft-2.
    Date
    2. 9.2014 19:19:40
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 50(2023) no.2, S.111 - 127
  8. Hjoerland, B.: ¬The importance of theories of knowledge : indexing and information retrieval as an example (2011) 0.01 
    0.010653973 = product of:
  0.021307945 = sum of:
    0.021307945 = product of:
      0.04261589 = sum of:
        0.04261589 = weight(_text_:22 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04261589 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18357785 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4359, 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=4359)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    17. 3.2011 19:22:55
  9. Hjoerland, B.: Theory of information science : Reply to Professor Gernot Wersig (1998) 0.01 
    0.010597459 = product of:
  0.021194918 = sum of:
    0.021194918 = product of:
      0.042389836 = sum of:
        0.042389836 = weight(_text_:2 in 403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042389836 = score(doc=403,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.32742465 = fieldWeight in 403, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=403)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    nfd Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 49(1998) H.2, S.122-126
  10. Hjoerland, B.: Classification (2017) 0.01 
    0.00999138 = product of:
  0.01998276 = sum of:
    0.01998276 = product of:
      0.03996552 = sum of:
        0.03996552 = weight(_text_:2 in 3610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03996552 = score(doc=3610,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.30869892 = fieldWeight in 3610, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3610)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    2. 9.2014 19:19:40
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 44(2017) no.2, S.97-128
  11. Hjoerland, B.: User-based and cognitive approaches to knowledge organization : a theoretical analysis of the research literature (2013) 0.01 
    0.00887831 = product of:
  0.01775662 = sum of:
    0.01775662 = product of:
      0.03551324 = sum of:
        0.03551324 = weight(_text_:22 in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03551324 = score(doc=629,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18357785 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 629, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=629)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    22. 2.2013 11:49:13
  12. Hjoerland, B.: Facet analysis : the logical approach to knowledge organization (2013) 0.01 
    0.0076480582 = product of:
  0.0152961165 = sum of:
    0.0152961165 = product of:
      0.030592233 = sum of:
        0.030592233 = weight(_text_:2 in 2720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030592233 = score(doc=2720,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.23629841 = fieldWeight in 2720, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2720)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The facet-analytic paradigm is probably the most distinct approach to knowledge organization within Library and Information Science, and in many ways it has dominated what has be termed "modern classification theory". It was mainly developed by S.R. Ranganathan and the British Classification Research Group, but it is mostly based on principles of logical division developed more than two millennia ago. Colon Classification (CC) and Bliss 2 (BC2) are among the most important systems developed on this theoretical basis, but it has also influenced the development of other systems, such as the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) and is also applied in many websites. It still has a strong position in the field and it is the most explicit and "pure" theoretical approach to knowledge organization (KO) (but it is not by implication necessarily also the most important one). The strength of this approach is its logical principles and the way it provides structures in knowledge organization systems (KOS). The main weaknesses are (1) its lack of empirical basis and (2) its speculative ordering of knowledge without basis in the development or influence of theories and socio-historical studies. It seems to be based on the problematic assumption that relations between concepts are a priori and not established by the development of models, theories and laws.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 49(2013) no.2, S.545-557
  13. Hjoerland, B.: Political versus apolitical epistemologies in knowledge organization (2020) 0.01 
    0.0076480582 = product of:
  0.0152961165 = sum of:
    0.0152961165 = product of:
      0.030592233 = sum of:
        0.030592233 = weight(_text_:2 in 24) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030592233 = score(doc=24,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.23629841 = fieldWeight in 24, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=24)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Section 1 raises the issue of this article: whether knowledge organization systems (KOS) and knowledge organization processes (KOP) are neutral or political by nature and whether it is a fruitful ideal that they should be neutral. These questions are embedded in the broader issue of scientific and scholarly research methods and their philosophical assumptions: what kinds of methods and what epistemological assumptions lie behind the construction of KOS (and research in general)? Section 2 presents and discusses basic approaches and epistemologies and their status in relation to neutrality. Section 3 offers a specific example from feminist scholarship in order to clearly demonstrate that methodologies that often claim to be or are considered apolitical represent subjectivity disguised as objectivity. It contains four subsections: 3.1 Feminist views on History, 3.2 Psychology, 3.3 Knowledge Organization, and 3.4. Epistemology. Overall, feminist scholarship has argued that methodologies, claiming neutrality but supporting repression of groups of people should be termed epistemological violence and they are opposed to social, critical, and pragmatic epistemologies that reflect the interaction between science and the greater society. Section 4 discusses the relation between the researchers' (and indexers') political attitudes and their paradigms/indexing. Section 5 considers the contested nature of epistemological labels, and Section 6 concludes that the question of whose interest a specific KOS, algorithm, or information system is serving should always be at the forefront in information studies and knowledge organization (KO).
    Content
    Part of a special issue: The politics of knowledge organization, Part 2; guest editors: Robert D. Montoya and Gregory H. Leazer. DOI:10.5771/0943-7444-2020-6-461.
    Date
    2. 9.2014 19:19:40
  14. Hjoerland, B.: Science, Part I : basic conceptions of science and the scientific method (2021) 0.01 
    0.0076480582 = product of:
  0.0152961165 = sum of:
    0.0152961165 = product of:
      0.030592233 = sum of:
        0.030592233 = weight(_text_:2 in 594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030592233 = score(doc=594,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.23629841 = fieldWeight in 594, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=594)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article is the first in a trilogy about the concept "science". Section 1 considers the historical development of the meaning of the term science and shows its close relation to the terms "knowl­edge" and "philosophy". Section 2 presents four historic phases in the basic conceptualizations of science (1) science as representing absolute certain of knowl­edge based on deductive proof; (2) science as representing absolute certain of knowl­edge based on "the scientific method"; (3) science as representing fallible knowl­edge based on "the scientific method"; (4) science without a belief in "the scientific method" as constitutive, hence the question about the nature of science becomes dramatic. Section 3 presents four basic understandings of the scientific method: Rationalism, which gives priority to a priori thinking; empiricism, which gives priority to the collection, description, and processing of data in a neutral way; historicism, which gives priority to the interpretation of data in the light of "paradigm" and pragmatism, which emphasizes the analysis of the purposes, consequences, and the interests of knowl­edge. The second article in the trilogy focus on different fields studying science, while the final article presets further developments in the concept of science and the general conclusion. Overall, the trilogy illuminates the most important tensions in different conceptualizations of science and argues for the role of information science and knowl­edge organization in the study of science and suggests how "science" should be understood as an object of research in these fields.
    Date
    2. 9.2014 19:19:40
  15. Hjoerland, B.: Information retrieval, text composition, and semantics (1998) 0.01 
    0.0074935355 = product of:
  0.014987071 = sum of:
    0.014987071 = product of:
      0.029974142 = sum of:
        0.029974142 = weight(_text_:2 in 649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029974142 = score(doc=649,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.2315242 = fieldWeight in 649, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=649)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Information science (IS) is concerned with the searching and retrieval of text and other information (IR), mostly in electronic databases and on the Internet. Such databases contain fulltext (or other kinds of documents, e.g. pictures) and/or document representations and/or different kinds of 'value added information'. The core theoretical problems for IS is related to the determination of the usefulness of different 'subject access points' in electronic databases. This problem is again related to theories of meaning and semantics. This paper outlines some important principles in the design of documents done in the field of 'composition studies'. It maps the possible subject access points and presents research done on each kind of these. It shows how theorie of IR must build on or relate to different theories of concepts and meaning. It discusses 2 contrasting theories of semantics worked out by Ludwig Wittgenstein: 'the picture theory' and 'the theory od language games' and demonstrates the different consequences for such theories for IR. Finally, the implications for information professionals are discussed
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 25(1998) nos.1/2, S.16-31
  16. Hjoerland, B.: What is Knowledge Organization (KO)? (2008) 0.01 
    0.0074935355 = product of:
  0.014987071 = sum of:
    0.014987071 = product of:
      0.029974142 = sum of:
        0.029974142 = weight(_text_:2 in 2131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029974142 = score(doc=2131,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.2315242 = fieldWeight in 2131, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2131)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    2. 8.2008 19:18:05
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 35(2008) nos.2/3, S.86-101
  17. Hjoerland, B.: Theories are knowledge organizing systems (KOS) (2015) 0.01 
    0.0074935355 = product of:
  0.014987071 = sum of:
    0.014987071 = product of:
      0.029974142 = sum of:
        0.029974142 = weight(_text_:2 in 2193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029974142 = score(doc=2193,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.2315242 = fieldWeight in 2193, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2193)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    2. 9.2014 19:19:40
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 42(2015) no.2, S.113-128
  18. Hjoerland, B.: Domain analysis (2017) 0.01 
    0.007064973 = product of:
  0.014129946 = sum of:
    0.014129946 = product of:
      0.028259892 = sum of:
        0.028259892 = weight(_text_:2 in 3852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028259892 = score(doc=3852,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.2182831 = fieldWeight in 3852, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3852)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Date
    2. 9.2014 19:19:40
  19. Hjoerland, B.; Nicolaisen, J.: Scientific and scholarly classifications are not "naïve" : a comment to Begthol (2003) (2004) 0.01 
    0.006244613 = product of:
  0.012489226 = sum of:
    0.012489226 = product of:
      0.024978451 = sum of:
        0.024978451 = weight(_text_:2 in 3023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024978451 = score(doc=3023,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.19293682 = fieldWeight in 3023, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3023)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Relationships between Knowledge Organization in LIS and Scientific & Scholarly Classifications In her paper "Classification for Information Retrieval and Classification for Knowledge Discovery: Relationships between 'Professional' and 'Naive' Classifications" (KO v30, no.2, 2003), Beghtol outlines how Scholarly activities and research lead to classification systems which subsequently are disseminated in publications which are classified in information retrieval systems, retrieved by the users and again used in Scholarly activities and so on. We think this model is correct and that its point is important. What we are reacting to is the fact that Beghtol describes the Classifications developed by scholars as "naive" while she describes the Classifications developed by librarians and information scientists as "professional." We fear that this unfortunate terminology is rooted in deeply ar chored misjudgments about the relationships between scientific and Scholarly classification an the one side and LIS Classifications an the other. Only a correction of this misjudgment may give us in the field of knowledge organization a Chance to do a job that is not totally disrespected and disregarded by the rest of the intellectual world.
    Footnote
    Bezugnahme auf: Beghtol, C.: Classification for information retrieval and classification for knowledge discovery: relationships between 'professional' and 'naive' classifications" in: Knowledge organization. 30(2003), no.2, S.64-73; vgl. dazu auch die Erwiderung von C. Beghtol in: Knowledge organization. 31(2004) no.1, S.62-63.
  20. Hjoerland, B.: Education in knowledge organization (KO) (2023) 0.01 
    0.006244613 = product of:
  0.012489226 = sum of:
    0.012489226 = product of:
      0.024978451 = sum of:
        0.024978451 = weight(_text_:2 in 1124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024978451 = score(doc=1124,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1294644 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05242341 = queryNorm
            0.19293682 = fieldWeight in 1124, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.4695914 = idf(docFreq=10170, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1124)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article provides analyses, describes dilemmas, and suggests way forwards in the teaching of knowl­edge organization (KO). The general assumption of the article is that theoretical problems in KO must be the point of departure for teaching KO. Section 2 addresses the teaching of practical, applied and professional KO, focusing on learning about specific knowl­edge organization systems (KOS), specific standards, and specific methods for organizing knowl­edge, but provides arguments for not isolating these aspects from theoretical issues. Section 3 is about teaching theoretical and academic KO, in which the focus is on examining the bases on which KOSs and knowl­edge organization processes such as classifying and indexing are founded. This basically concerns concepts and conceptual relations and should not be based on prejudices about the superiority of either humans or computers for KO. Section 4 is about the study of education in KO, which is considered important because it is about how the field is monitoring itself and about how it should be shaping its own future. Section 5 is about the role of the ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowl­edge Organization in education of KO, emphasizing the need for an interdisciplinary source that may help improve the conceptual clarity in the field. The conclusion suggests some specific recommendations for curricula in KO based on the author's view of KO.
    Date
    2. 9.2014 19:19:40

Authors

Years

Types

  • a 36
  • d 1
  • el 1
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications