Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0027555511 = product of:
  0.0055111023 = sum of:
    0.0055111023 = product of:
      0.0110222045 = sum of:
        0.0110222045 = weight(_text_:a in 230) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0110222045 = score(doc=230,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.25351265 = fieldWeight in 230, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=230)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this paper, the role of bibliography in the global learning society is examined. Through an analysis of issues characterizing modernity and globalization, an understanding of bibliography located in light of these issues. I argue that by considering bibliography as a document performing a particular communicative activity with a particular purpose and as a genre that both creates particular expectations as to how to use a bibliography and how to recognize a given bibliographical activity, bibliography as a form of knowledge organization may be able to deal with the effects of modernity on social and cultural communication. I conclude that these ways of understanding bibliographical activity may provide means as to how understand and situate the role of bibliography in the global learning society.

Source

Knowledge organization for a global learning society: Proceedings of the 9th International ISKO Conference, 4-7 July 2006, Vienna, Austria. Hrsg.: G. Budin, C. Swertz u. K. Mitgutsch

Type

a

0.0022155463 = product of:
  0.0044310926 = sum of:
    0.0044310926 = product of:
      0.008862185 = sum of:
        0.008862185 = weight(_text_:a in 3504) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008862185 = score(doc=3504,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 3504, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3504)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.002189429 = product of:
  0.004378858 = sum of:
    0.004378858 = product of:
      0.008757716 = sum of:
        0.008757716 = weight(_text_:a in 1590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008757716 = score(doc=1590,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.20142901 = fieldWeight in 1590, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1590)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

Type

a

0.0021674242 = product of:
  0.0043348484 = sum of:
    0.0043348484 = product of:
      0.008669697 = sum of:
        0.008669697 = weight(_text_:a in 5621) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008669697 = score(doc=5621,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.19940455 = fieldWeight in 5621, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5621)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Conceptualizing the bibliographic record as text implies that it needs to be treated as such in order to fully exploit its function in information retrieval activities, which affects how access to works can be achieved. A theoretical framework is outlined, including methodological consequences in terms of how to go about teaching students of knowledge organization and users of information retrieval systems the literate activity of using the bibliographic record as a text. For knowledge organization research this implies that providing access to texts and the works they embody is not a technical matter, but rather a literate issue.

Type

a

0.0019582848 = product of:
  0.0039165695 = sum of:
    0.0039165695 = product of:
      0.007833139 = sum of:
        0.007833139 = weight(_text_:a in 4452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007833139 = score(doc=4452,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 4452, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4452)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In 1971 UNISIST proposed a model for scientific and technical communication. This model has been widely cited and additional models have been added to the literature. There is a need to bring this model to the focus of information science (IS) research as well as to update and revise it. There are both empirical and theoretical reasons for this need. On the empirical side much has happened in the developments of electronic communication that needs to be considered. From a theoretical point of view the domain-analytic view has proposed that differences between different disciplines and domains should be emphasised. The original model only considered scientific and technical communication as a whole. There is a need both to compare with the humanities and social sciences and to regard internal differences in the sciences. There are also other reasons to reconsider and modify this model today. Offers not only a descriptive model, but also a theoretical perspective from which information systems may be understood and evaluated. In addition to this provides empirical exemplification and proposals for research initiatives.

Type

a

0.0018577921 = product of:
  0.0037155843 = sum of:
    0.0037155843 = product of:
      0.0074311686 = sum of:
        0.0074311686 = weight(_text_:a in 2265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0074311686 = score(doc=2265,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 2265, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2265)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

By drawing on Lev Manovich's argument about the database as a cultural form, I argue in this paper that knowledge organization consequently may be considered a cultural form. I use Manovich's argument to locate an understanding of knowledge organization activity in light of new media. Knowledge organization is not an appendage but rather a prime communication and production form of new media, turning knowledge organization into knowledge design. This implies moreover that knowledge organization is not only an activity ensuring storage and retrieval but is also media design as well. The theoretical consequence of this is to engage in 'info-aesthetics'.

Type

a

0.0018318077 = product of:
  0.0036636153 = sum of:
    0.0036636153 = product of:
      0.0073272306 = sum of:
        0.0073272306 = weight(_text_:a in 6087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0073272306 = score(doc=6087,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 6087, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6087)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The general concern of Bazerman's book Shaping Written Knowledge. The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science is written knowledge as it is produced by the academy. Bazerman discusses in particular the rhetoric, communicative, and epistemological issues of written knowledge. The article discusses these themes in a library and information science (LIS) perspective in terms of their implications for LIS research. For several reasons, it is argued that this way of scrutinizing into written knowledge ought to be of special interest to LIS research. As an example of a particular field of research in LIS, the article discusses the relationship between indexing theory and written knowledge. Bazerman analyzes written knowledge from a literary point of view. Among other things, it is argued that indexing theory can be seen as part of literary theory in that some of the questions raised by the latter are also raised in indexing theory. Furthermore, it is put forward that the indexer can be considered an author. The indexer produces a text, the document representation, which is the text the user actually meets in the first place. That way, the producer of a document representation is to some extent responsible for the quality of the documents indexed. Having discussed this relationship between written knowledge and LIS research in general and indexing theory in particular, it is concluded that LIS research ought to head toward more humanistic oriented research traditions, if the line of research presented by Bazerman should be considered useful for LIS

Type

a

0.0016959244 = product of:
  0.0033918489 = sum of:
    0.0033918489 = product of:
      0.0067836978 = sum of:
        0.0067836978 = weight(_text_:a in 2043) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0067836978 = score(doc=2043,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 2043, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2043)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In this article the relationship between communication technologies and the LIS concept of knowledge organization will be examined from a medium-theory perspective. The purpose of the medium-theory perspective is to trace the historicity of the LIS concept of knowledge organization, that is, an examination of which tradition has produced the concept. The perspective will help to reveal the condition of possibilities of knowledge organization and its strong connection with communication technologies, and their constitution of the social organization of society. The means and modes of communication fundamentally alter existing ways of thinking and of producing, communicatiog and organizing knowledge. The LIS concept of knowledge organization will be analyzed in relation to the storing and communication of knowledge in oral cultures, written cultures, print culture, and electronic cultures. Through this, it will be argued that the narrow LIS concept of knowledge organization is subordinated and in interaction with a broader social organization of knowledge in society. Further, it will be argued that the rise of the Internet as a source of knowledge and information must be understood in relation to and in continuation of this interaction. Among other things, it will be concluded that a relevant socio-historical background and framework for the LIS concept of knowledge organization is how humans have organized their intellectual activities throughout history in terms of particular means and modes of communication. Medium theory can provide part of this background and framework.

Type

a

0.0016616598 = product of:
  0.0033233196 = sum of:
    0.0033233196 = product of:
      0.006646639 = sum of:
        0.006646639 = weight(_text_:a in 2348) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006646639 = score(doc=2348,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 2348, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2348)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A publication on the foundation of knowledge organization

0.0016616598 = product of:
  0.0033233196 = sum of:
    0.0033233196 = product of:
      0.006646639 = sum of:
        0.006646639 = weight(_text_:a in 5594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006646639 = score(doc=5594,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 5594, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=5594)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - To provide some theoretical considerations concerning information literacy so as to contribute to a theoretically informed point of departure for understanding information literacy and to argue that to be an information literate person is to have knowledge about information sources and that searching and using them is determined by an insight into how knowledge is socially organized in society. Design/methodology/approach - Using concepts from composition studies that deal with the question of what a writer needs to know in order to produce a text, the paper outlines some ideas and key concepts in order to show how these ideas and concepts are useful to our understanding of information literacy. To demonstrate how information-literacy is to have knowledge about information sources and that searching and using them is determined by an insight into how knowledge is socially organized in society, the paper takes a point of departure in Habermas' theory of the public sphere. Findings - Concludes that information seeking competence is a sociopolitical skill, like reading and writing skills, connected to human activity. Searching for documents in information systems is a complex and sociopolitical activity. As an expression of human activity we might say that searching for documents and reading and writing constitutes each other. The genre knowledge necessary in reading and writing does also apply when seeking information in systems of organized knowledge as the forms of information determine what can be expected and found in these systems. Information literacy covers, then, the ability to read society and its textually and genre-mediated structures. Information literacy represents an understanding of society and its textual mediation. Research limitations/implications - Locating an understanding of information literacy in a broader discursive framework requires us to rethink our hitherto concepts and understandings of information literacy as socio-political skills and not mere technical search skills Originality/value - Rarely is information literacy discussed and understood from social-theoretical perspectives. This article illuminates how an analysis of information literacy from the perspective of the theory of the public sphere can open up for an understanding of information literacy socio-political skills. Thus, the article has contributed with a new interpretation of information literacy.

Type

a

0.0016074047 = product of:
  0.0032148093 = sum of:
    0.0032148093 = product of:
      0.0064296187 = sum of:
        0.0064296187 = weight(_text_:a in 2998) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0064296187 = score(doc=2998,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.14788237 = fieldWeight in 2998, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2998)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Literary critics are reviewing and critiquing works of fiction. But where, one may ask, are the critics of the functionality and legitimacy of knowledge organization systems? That is, for instance, bibliographies, classification systems, thesauri, encyclopedias or search engines - all systems that mediate culture. In this paper I will argue for a conception of the librarian as an information critic. Starting with a critique of the lack of an information critic, I shall next pinpoint what such an information critic ought to look like, why it is needed and how the modern librarian may fulfill this task. Librarians, and librarianship in general, have always had a paradoxical self-understanding. On the one hand, they have seen themselves as promoters of, for instance, democracy, free access to information, civil courage and literacy. On the other hand, librarians have usually portrayed themselves as neutral agents in social and cultural communication. That is, librarians claim they make a difference but are neutral with regard to how this difference is to be understood. The lack of active and critical librarians implies that they cannot be seen as advocates of democracy because democracy as a historical category demands constant analysis and critique in order to be evolving and stable.
That part of society that matters to librarians is the one where knowledge and information, materialized in a variety of genres, are circulating and what role knowledge organization systems have in relation to these. Constructing a public consciousness about this issue requires librarians to participate in the public sphere and discuss and justify why knowledge organization systems such as, for instance, bibliographies, classification systems, thesauri, encyclopedias or search engines, and the functionality of these, matter to the public, that is, to argue how such systems make a difference. Librarians can and should actively do this by acting as critics of society's textually mediated communication structures. This is much more than merely `evaluating', for instance, databases or search engines and their technical capacities. It is putting the discussion of these into a critique of late modern culture and society. In this way we may consider the modern librarian as an information critic. The modern librarian envisioned as an information critic is needed because systems of knowledge organization, in particular with the rise of the Internet, are part of our everyday life and human activities. This means that we are more than ever dependent on such systems, but at the same time we need critical insight into how such systems work and why. Otherwise, our dependence becomes one of slavery and not active participation. Therefore, critical analyses and criticisms of the tendency of theses systems to act as naturalized and transcend tools are constantly needed because they shape society and culture and are shaped by society and culture. The modern librarian should be providing such a critique of bibliographies, catalogs, and encyclopedias etc. because these are the librarians' working genres used when mediating society and culture.

Type

a

0.0015481601 = product of:
  0.0030963202 = sum of:
    0.0030963202 = product of:
      0.0061926404 = sum of:
        0.0061926404 = weight(_text_:a in 2682) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0061926404 = score(doc=2682,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 2682, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2682)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The new electronic environments pose a threat and challenge to the theory and practice of knowledge organization. Documents can be approached in electronic retrieval activities in ways not dependent an 'classical' knowledge organization activities such as indexing or classification. Accordingly, an argument stating the qualitative difference of knowledge organization in the new electronic environments must show that knowledge organization is worth pursuing and that it is a valuable support to users of information retrieval (IR) systems. In this paper the qualitative difference of knowledge organization and its role in scholarly communication is framed as a question of ascribing cognitive authority to documents. The concem is to examine and discuss how and to what extent knowledge organization as an epistemic instrument in scholarly communication can contribute to ascribe cognitive authority to scholarly documents. The paper is structured in the following way. Initially, a brief examination of the appearance of cognitive authority in knowledge organization, and how that affects an argument stating the qualitative difference of knowledge organization shall be presented. Secondly, the theoretical approach will be outlined and discussed. Then the empirical analysis applying the theory will be presented. The last part will point to the benefits, limitations, and possibilities of the proposed theoretical approach in relation to the conception of knowledge organization as an epistemic activity in scholarly communication.

Type

a

0.0011077732 = product of:
  0.0022155463 = sum of:
    0.0022155463 = product of:
      0.0044310926 = sum of:
        0.0044310926 = weight(_text_:a in 639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0044310926 = score(doc=639,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.043477926 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037706986 = queryNorm
            0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 639, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=639)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a