Search (23 results, page 1 of 2)

0.021590449 = product of:
  0.043180898 = sum of:
    0.043180898 = sum of:
      0.005740611 = weight(_text_:a in 1468) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.005740611 = score(doc=1468,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.10809815 = fieldWeight in 1468, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1468)
      0.037440285 = weight(_text_:22 in 1468) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.037440285 = score(doc=1468,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1468, 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=1468)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In a research project focusing on knowledge organization and classification education, 407 learning objectives proposed in courses entirely or partially dedicated to these subjects in North American Library and Information Science programs were categorized with the help of the Benjamin Bloom's Taxonomy of cognitive objectives. The analysis reveals that the vast majority of course objectives remain at the lower levels of the Taxonomy. These results tend to reinforce observations made over the past 30 years in relation to KO and classification education. While KO and classification educators recognize the necessity for students to develop high-level analytic and evaluative skills, there are few references to those skills in current course objectives.

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

Type

a

0.0035799001 = product of:
  0.0071598003 = sum of:
    0.0071598003 = product of:
      0.014319601 = sum of:
        0.014319601 = weight(_text_:a in 5193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014319601 = score(doc=5193,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.26964417 = fieldWeight in 5193, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5193)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

A model for standardizing existing definitions and/or writing new definitions for thesaurus descriptors has been developed, within the framework of a research project concerned with the usefulness of terminological definitions for indexers working with a thesaurus. The proposed model is an expansion of a model presented by Sager and L'Homme in 1994. Examples of its application in a thesaurus describing the field of Adult literacy programming and training are introduced

Type

a

0.00334869 = product of:
  0.00669738 = sum of:
    0.00669738 = product of:
      0.01339476 = sum of:
        0.01339476 = weight(_text_:a in 6994) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01339476 = score(doc=6994,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.25222903 = fieldWeight in 6994, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6994)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0029000505 = product of:
  0.005800101 = sum of:
    0.005800101 = product of:
      0.011600202 = sum of:
        0.011600202 = weight(_text_:a in 1804) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011600202 = score(doc=1804,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 1804, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1804)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Based on the premise that in a multilingual thesaurus all languages are equal, reviews the options and solutions offered by the guidelines to the developer of specialized thesauri. Introduces other problems of a sociocultural, and even of a truly political nature, which are a prominent features in the daily life of the thesaurus designer but with which the theory and the guidelines do not deal very well. Focuses in turn on semantic, managerial, and technological aspects of multilingual thesaurus construction, from the perspective of giving equal treatment to all languages involved

Footnote

Contribution to a special issue devoted to papers read at the 1996 Electronic Access to Fiction research seminar at Copenhagen, Denmark

Type

a

0.0026849252 = product of:
  0.0053698504 = sum of:
    0.0053698504 = product of:
      0.010739701 = sum of:
        0.010739701 = weight(_text_:a in 475) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010739701 = score(doc=475,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20223314 = fieldWeight in 475, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=475)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

General linguistic and specific semantic problems arising in multilingual thesaurus construction are well defined in the various textbooks and in the guidelines covering this area. Many details are provided on the 'conceptual equivalence' issue, and various ways of dealing with conceptual divergence are described. But when discussing semantic solutions, display options, management issues, or use of technology, specialists and guidelines seldom, if ever, go as far as commenting on whether or not a particular option is truly respectful of a language and its speakers. This paper, based on the premise that in a multilingual thesaurus all languages are equal, reviews the options and solutions offered by the guidelines to the developer of specialized thesauri. It also introduces other problems of a sociocultural, and even of a truly political nature, a prominent feature in the daily life of the thesaurus designer with which the theory and the guidelines do not deal very well

Type

a

0.0024857575 = product of:
  0.004971515 = sum of:
    0.004971515 = product of:
      0.00994303 = sum of:
        0.00994303 = weight(_text_:a in 55) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00994303 = score(doc=55,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 55, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=55)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The terminological consistency of indexers working with a thesaurus as indexing aid remains low. This suggests that indexers cannot perceive easily or very clearly the meaning of each descriptor available as index term. This paper presents the background nd some of the findings of a small scale experiment designed to study the effect on interindexer terminological consistency of modifying the nature of the semantic information given with descriptors in a thesaurus. The study also provided some insights into the respective usefulness of standardized definitions and of traditional networks of hierarchical and associative relationships as means of providing essential meaning information in the thesaurus used as indexing aid

Type

a

0.0024857575 = product of:
  0.004971515 = sum of:
    0.004971515 = product of:
      0.00994303 = sum of:
        0.00994303 = weight(_text_:a in 5521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00994303 = score(doc=5521,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 5521, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5521)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Education is a culturally and politically branded domain of knowledge and practice, and education specialists have traditionally remained somewhat isolated, communicating mainly on the general level of "basic educational principles." The expansion of the World Wide Web could change this situation; there exist on the Web a substantial number of education-related resources which have become accessible to international audiences. In this paper, the authors look at how these resources are organized with a view to answering two questions: (1) In a context of global exchanges, are education-related resources available on the Web organized in such a way as to maximize efficiency of identification and retrieval? (2) In virtual libraries with specialized collections on education, do categorization schemes and terminology reflect anything other than local perspectives and systems?

Type

a

0.0023678814 = product of:
  0.0047357627 = sum of:
    0.0047357627 = product of:
      0.009471525 = sum of:
        0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 746) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=746,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 746, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=746)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0023678814 = product of:
  0.0047357627 = sum of:
    0.0047357627 = product of:
      0.009471525 = sum of:
        0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 8898) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=8898,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 8898, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=8898)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0023678814 = product of:
  0.0047357627 = sum of:
    0.0047357627 = product of:
      0.009471525 = sum of:
        0.009471525 = weight(_text_:a in 2967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=2967,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 2967, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=2967)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0023435948 = product of:
  0.0046871896 = sum of:
    0.0046871896 = product of:
      0.009374379 = sum of:
        0.009374379 = weight(_text_:a in 4741) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009374379 = score(doc=4741,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 4741, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4741)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.002269176 = product of:
  0.004538352 = sum of:
    0.004538352 = product of:
      0.009076704 = sum of:
        0.009076704 = weight(_text_:a in 1147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009076704 = score(doc=1147,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 1147, 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=1147)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Because the multilingual thesaurus has a critical role to play in the global networked information world, its relational structure must come under close scrutiny. Traditionally, identity of relational structures has been sought for the different language versions of a multilingual thesaurus, often leading to the artificialization of all target languages. The various types of cross-lingual and intralingual relations found in thesauri are examined in the context of two questions: Are all types of thesaural relations transferable from one language to another? and Are the two members of a valid relation in a source language always the same in the target language(s)? Two options for resolving semantic conflicts in multilingual thesauri are presented.

Type

a

0.0020506454 = product of:
  0.004101291 = sum of:
    0.004101291 = product of:
      0.008202582 = sum of:
        0.008202582 = weight(_text_:a in 3569) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008202582 = score(doc=3569,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 3569, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3569)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Cataloging and classification education has been a recurring topic in the library and information science literature since the creation of the first library school toward the end of the nineteenth century. This article examines the literature of the past 20 years, in an era of major changes in the way documents and information transit from their creators to their ultimate users. It concludes by suggesting several aspects of classification education that need to be investigated further, in light of these new circumstances.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem special issue: Is there a catalog in your future? Celebrating Nancy J. Williamson: Scholar, educator, colleague, mentor

Type

a

0.0020506454 = product of:
  0.004101291 = sum of:
    0.004101291 = product of:
      0.008202582 = sum of:
        0.008202582 = weight(_text_:a in 5899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008202582 = score(doc=5899,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 5899, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5899)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

S.R. Ranganathan is credited with the introduction of the term "facet" in the field of knowledge organization towards the middle of the twentieth century. Facets have traditionally been used to organize document collections and to express complex subjects. In the digital world, they act as filters to facilitate navigation and improve retrieval. But the popularity of the term does not mean that a definitive characterization of the concept has been established. Indeed, several conceptualizations of the facet co-exist. This article provides an overview of formal and informal definitions found in the literature of knowledge organization, followed by a discussion of four common conceptualizations of the facet: process vs product, nature vs function, object vs subject and organization vs navigation.

Type

a

0.0020506454 = product of:
  0.004101291 = sum of:
    0.004101291 = product of:
      0.008202582 = sum of:
        0.008202582 = weight(_text_:a in 697) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008202582 = score(doc=697,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 697, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=697)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The content of master's programs accredited by the American Library Association was examined to assess the status of knowledge organization (KO) as a subject in current training. Data collected show that KO remains very visible in a majority of programs, mainly in the form of required and electives courses focusing on descriptive cataloging, classification, and metadata. Observed tendencies include, however, the recent elimination of the required KO course in several programs, the reality that one third of KO electives listed in course catalogs have not been scheduled in the past three years, and the fact that two-thirds of those teaching KO specialize in other areas of information science.

Type

a

0.001913537 = product of:
  0.003827074 = sum of:
    0.003827074 = product of:
      0.007654148 = sum of:
        0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 2107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007654148 = score(doc=2107,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 2107, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2107)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Suggests that complex thesauri are not entirely appropriate in community-based/oriented resource centres and information systems. Describes a proposal to create and integrate term definitions in the Canadian Literacy Thesaurus, currently under development. Discusses major terminological problems arising in the process

Type

a

0.001913537 = product of:
  0.003827074 = sum of:
    0.003827074 = product of:
      0.007654148 = sum of:
        0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 2730) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007654148 = score(doc=2730,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 2730, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2730)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper examines whether a concept's hierarchical level affects the likelihood of its universality across schemes for knowledge representation and knowledge organization. Empirical data an equivalents are drawn from a bilingual thesaurus, a pair of biomedical vocabularies, and two ontologies. Conceptual equivalence across resources occurs significantly more often at the basic level than at subordinate or superordinate levels. Attempts to integrate knowledge representation or knowledge organization tools should concentrate an establishing equivalences at the basic level. 1. Rationale The degree of success attainable in the integration of multiple knowledge representation systems or knowledge organization schemes is constrained by limitations an the universality of human conceptual systems. For example, human languages do not all lexicalize the same set of concepts; nor do they structure (quasi-)equivalent concepts in the same relational patterns (Riesthuis, 2001). As a consequence, even multilingual thesauri designed from the outset from the perspective of multiple languages may routinely include situations where corresponding terms are not truly equivalent (Hudon, 1997, 2001). Intuitively, where inexactness and partialness in equivalence mappings across knowledge representation schemes and knowledge organizations schemes exist, a more difficult retrieval scenario arises than where equivalence mappings reflect full and exact conceptual matches. The question we address in this paper is whether a concept's hierarchical level af ects the likelihood of its universality/full equivalence across schemes for knowledge representation and knowledge organization. Cognitive science research has shown that one particular hierarchical level-called the basic level--enjoys a privileged status (Brown, 1958; Rosch et al., 1976). Our underlying hypothesis is that concepts at the basic level (e.g., apple, shoe, chair) are more likely to match across knowledge representation schemes and knowledge organization schemes than concepts at the superordinate (e.g., fruit, footwear, furniture) or subordinate (e.g., Granny Smith, sneaker, recliner) levels. This hypothesis is consistent with ethnobiological data showing that folk classifications of flora are more likely to agree at the basic level than at superordinate or subordinate levels (Berlin, 1992).

Type

a

0.001913537 = product of:
  0.003827074 = sum of:
    0.003827074 = product of:
      0.007654148 = sum of:
        0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 3958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007654148 = score(doc=3958,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 3958, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3958)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Subject retrieval in a networked environment: Proceedings of the IFLA Satellite Meeting held in Dublin, OH, 14-16 August 2001 and sponsored by the IFLA Classification and Indexing Section, the IFLA Information Technology Section and OCLC. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine

Type

a

0.0018909799 = product of:
  0.0037819599 = sum of:
    0.0037819599 = product of:
      0.0075639198 = sum of:
        0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0075639198 = score(doc=117,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 117, 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=117)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Most moving image collections have existed for less than a century, and as we enter the new millennium we observe that the organisation of these collections is still characterized by ad hoc practices. An important stream of research in this area focuses on high-level access to images using methods from library and information science, and using text to create information useful for retrieval. It has been established that common names for objects seen in the image are the key to retrieval in such collections. On a day-to-day basis, those responsible for collection management build indexing vocabularies, creating terms as necessary, and often structuring them loosely into a thesaurus. Discussions with moving image collection librarians have led us to believe that there may be an optimal number of common names a thesaurus for managing general collections of moving images should contain, and that the terms may even be the same from one thesaurus to the next. In this paper, we describe the methodology adopted for studying this question, and report preliminary results

Type

a

0.001757696 = product of:
  0.003515392 = sum of:
    0.003515392 = product of:
      0.007030784 = sum of:
        0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007030784 = score(doc=116,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 116, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=116)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Because of the nature, number, and extreme mobility of resources available on electronic networks, access instruments that will allow information seekers to find relevant Web pages or sites are essential. While virtual libraries without clear collection development policies continue to be established, ad hoc knowledge organization schemes also continue to be conceived and implemented; these so-called innovative classification tools are generally structured around loose categories representing a mix of disciplines, subjects, forms of presentation, and audiences. This paper discusses a few examples of Web-based organization schemes, suggesting that their degree of intuitiveness, user-friendliness and efficiency is very possibly overrated

Type

a