Search (14 results, page 1 of 1)

0.02552601 = product of:
  0.05105202 = sum of:
    0.05105202 = sum of:
      0.030556554 = weight(_text_:p in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.030556554 = score(doc=2763,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1359764 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.037818365 = queryNorm
          0.22471954 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
      0.020495467 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.020495467 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13243347 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.037818365 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2763, 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=2763)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The different points of views an knowledge representation and organization from various research communities reflect underlying philosophies and paradigms in these communities. This paper reviews differences and relations in knowledge representation and organization and generalizes four paradigms-integrative and disintegrative pragmatism and integrative and disintegrative epistemologism. Examples such as classification, XML schemas, and ontologies are compared based an how they specify concepts, build data models, and encode knowledge organization structures. 1. Introduction Knowledge representation (KR) is a term that several research communities use to refer to somewhat different aspects of the same research area. The artificial intelligence (AI) community considers KR as simply "something to do with writing down, in some language or communications medium, descriptions or pictures that correspond in some salient way to the world or a state of the world" (Duce & Ringland, 1988, p. 3). It emphasizes the ways in which knowledge can be encoded in a computer program (Bench-Capon, 1990). For the library and information science (LIS) community, KR is literally the synonym of knowledge organization, i.e., KR is referred to as the process of organizing knowledge into classifications, thesauri, or subject heading lists. KR has another meaning in LIS: it "encompasses every type and method of indexing, abstracting, cataloguing, classification, records management, bibliography and the creation of textual or bibliographic databases for information retrieval" (Anderson, 1996, p. 336). Adding the social dimension to knowledge organization, Hjoerland (1997) states that knowledge is a part of human activities and tied to the division of labor in society, which should be the primary organization of knowledge. Knowledge organization in LIS is secondary or derived, because knowledge is organized in learned institutions and publications. These different points of views an KR suggest that an essential difference in the understanding of KR between both AI and LIS lies in the source of representationwhether KR targets human activities or derivatives (knowledge produced) from human activities. This difference also decides their difference in purpose-in AI KR is mainly computer-application oriented or pragmatic and the result of representation is used to support decisions an human activities, while in LIS KR is conceptually oriented or abstract and the result of representation is used for access to derivatives from human activities.

Date

12. 9.2004 17:22:35

0.0126320375 = product of:
  0.025264075 = sum of:
    0.025264075 = product of:
      0.05052815 = sum of:
        0.05052815 = weight(_text_:p in 3262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05052815 = score(doc=3262,freq=28.0), product of:
            0.1359764 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037818365 = queryNorm
            0.371595 = fieldWeight in 3262, product of:
              5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
                28.0 = termFreq=28.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3262)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: KO 36(2009) no.1, S.62-63 (K. La Barre): "This special issue of Axiomathes presents an ambitious dual agenda. It attempts to highlight aspects of facet analysis (as used in LIS) that are shared by cognate approaches in philosophy, psychology, linguistics and computer science. Secondarily, the issue aims to attract others to the study and use of facet analysis. The authors represent a blend of lifetime involvement with facet analysis, such as Vickery, Broughton, Beghtol, and Dahlberg; those with well developed research agendas such as Tudhope, and Priss; and relative newcomers such as Gnoli, Cheti and Paradisi, and Slavic. Omissions are inescapable, but a more balanced issue would have resulted from inclusion of at least one researcher from the Indian school of facet theory. Another valuable addition might have been a reaction to the issue by one of the chief critics of facet analysis. Potentially useful, but absent, is a comprehensive bibliography of resources for those wishing to engage in further study, that now lie scattered throughout the issue. Several of the papers assume relative familiarity with facet analytical concepts and definitions, some of which are contested even within LIS. Gnoli's introduction (p. 127-130) traces the trajectory, extensions and new developments of this analytico- synthetic approach to subject access, while providing a laundry list of cognate approaches that are similar to facet analysis. This brief essay and the article by Priss (p. 243-255) directly addresses this first part of Gnoli's agenda. Priss provides detailed discussion of facet-like structures in computer science (p. 245- 246), and outlines the similarity between Formal Concept Analysis and facets. This comparison is equally fruitful for researchers in computer science and library and information science. By bridging into a discussion of visualization challenges for facet display, further research is also invited. Many of the remaining papers comprehensively detail the intellectual heritage of facet analysis (Beghtol; Broughton, p. 195-198; Dahlberg; Tudhope and Binding, p. 213-215; Vickery). Beghtol's (p. 131-144) examination of the origins of facet theory through the lens of the textbooks written by Ranganathan's mentor W.C.B. Sayers (1881-1960), Manual of Classification (1926, 1944, 1955) and a textbook written by Mills A Modern Outline of Classification (1964), serves to reveal the deep intellectual heritage of the changes in classification theory over time, as well as Ranganathan's own influence on and debt to Sayers.
Several of the papers are clearly written as primers and neatly address the second agenda item: attracting others to the study and use of facet analysis. The most valuable papers are written in clear, approachable language. Vickery's paper (p. 145-160) is a clarion call for faceted classification and facet analysis. The heart of the paper is a primer for central concepts and techniques. Vickery explains the value of using faceted classification in document retrieval. Also provided are potential solutions to thorny interface and display issues with facets. Vickery looks to complementary themes in knowledge organization, such as thesauri and ontologies as potential areas for extending the facet concept. Broughton (p. 193-210) describes a rigorous approach to the application of facet analysis in the creation of a compatible thesaurus from the schedules of the 2nd edition of the Bliss Classification (BC2). This discussion of exemplary faceted thesauri, recent standards work, and difficulties encountered in the project will provide valuable guidance for future research in this area. Slavic (p. 257-271) provides a challenge to make faceted classification come 'alive' through promoting the use of machine-readable formats for use and exchange in applications such as Topic Maps and SKOS (Simple Knowledge Organization Systems), and as supported by the standard BS8723 (2005) Structured Vocabulary for Information Retrieval. She also urges designers of faceted classifications to get involved in standards work. Cheti and Paradisi (p. 223-241) outline a basic approach to converting an existing subject indexing tool, the Nuovo Soggetario, into a faceted thesaurus through the use of facet analysis. This discussion, well grounded in the canonical literature, may well serve as a primer for future efforts. Also useful for those who wish to construct faceted thesauri is the article by Tudhope and Binding (p. 211-222). This contains an outline of basic elements to be found in exemplar faceted thesauri, and a discussion of project FACET (Faceted Access to Cultural heritage Terminology) with algorithmically-based semantic query expansion in a dataset composed of items from the National Museum of Science and Industry indexed with AAT (Art and Architecture Thesaurus). This paper looks to the future hybridization of ontologies and facets through standards developments such as SKOS because of the "lightweight semantics" inherent in facets.
Two of the papers revisit the interaction of facets with the theory of integrative levels, which posits that the organization of the natural world reflects increasingly interdependent complexity. This approach was tested as a basis for the creation of faceted classifications in the 1960s. These contemporary treatments of integrative levels are not discipline-driven as were the early approaches, but instead are ontological and phenomenological in focus. Dahlberg (p. 161-172) outlines the creation of the ICC (Information Coding System) and the application of the Systematifier in the generation of facets and the creation of a fully faceted classification. Gnoli (p. 177-192) proposes the use of fundamental categories as a way to redefine facets and fundamental categories in "more universal and level-independent ways" (p. 192). Given that Axiomathes has a stated focus on "contemporary issues in cognition and ontology" and the following thesis: "that real advances in contemporary science may depend upon a consideration of the origins and intellectual history of ideas at the forefront of current research," this venue seems well suited for the implementation of the stated agenda, to illustrate complementary approaches and to stimulate research. As situated, this special issue may well serve as a bridge to a more interdisciplinary dialogue about facet analysis than has previously been the case."

0.0108033735 = product of:
  0.021606747 = sum of:
    0.021606747 = product of:
      0.043213494 = sum of:
        0.043213494 = weight(_text_:p in 3253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043213494 = score(doc=3253,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1359764 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037818365 = queryNorm
            0.31780142 = fieldWeight in 3253, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3253)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.010247733 = product of:
  0.020495467 = sum of:
    0.020495467 = product of:
      0.040990934 = sum of:
        0.040990934 = weight(_text_:22 in 5083) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040990934 = score(doc=5083,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13243347 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037818365 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5083, 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=5083)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

27. 5.2007 22:19:35

0.009355997 = product of:
  0.018711993 = sum of:
    0.018711993 = product of:
      0.037423987 = sum of:
        0.037423987 = weight(_text_:p in 2824) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037423987 = score(doc=2824,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.1359764 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037818365 = queryNorm
            0.27522412 = fieldWeight in 2824, product of:
              4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
                24.0 = termFreq=24.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=2824)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: KO 32(2005) no.1, S.47-49 (M. Hudon): "Vanda Broughton's Essential Classification is the most recent addition to a very small set of classification textbooks published over the past few years. The book's 21 chapters are based very closely an the cataloguing and classification module at the School of Library, Archive, and Information studies at University College, London. The author's main objective is clear: this is "first and foremost a book about how to classify. The emphasis throughout is an the activity of classification rather than the theory, the practical problems of the organization of collections, and the needs of the users" (p. 1). This is not a theoretical work, but a basic course in classification and classification scheme application. For this reviewer, who also teaches "Classification 101," this is also a fascinating peek into how a colleague organizes content and structures her course. "Classification is everywhere" (p. 1): the first sentence of this book is also one of the first statements in my own course, and Professor Broughton's metaphors - the supermarket, canned peas, flowers, etc. - are those that are used by our colleagues around the world. The combination of tone, writing style and content display are reader-friendly; they are in fact what make this book remarkable and what distinguishes it from more "formal" textbooks, such as The Organization of Information, the superb text written and recently updated (2004) by Professor Arlene Taylor (2nd ed. Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited, 2004). Reading Essential Classification, at times, feels like being in a classroom, facing a teacher who assures you that "you don't need to worry about this at this stage" (p. 104), and reassures you that, although you now speed a long time looking for things, "you will soon speed up when you get to know the scheme better" (p. 137). This teacher uses redundancy in a productive fashion, and she is not afraid to express her own opinions ("I think that if these concepts are helpful they may be used" (p. 245); "It's annoying that LCC doesn't provide clearer instructions, but if you keep your head and take them one step at a time [i.e. the tables] they're fairly straightforward" (p. 174)). Chapters 1 to 7 present the essential theoretical concepts relating to knowledge organization and to bibliographic classification. The author is adept at making and explaining distinctions: known-item retrieval versus subject retrieval, personal versus public/shared/official classification systems, scientific versus folk classification systems, object versus aspect classification systems, semantic versus syntactic relationships, and so on. Chapters 8 and 9 discuss the practice of classification, through content analysis and subject description. A short discussion of difficult subjects, namely the treatment of unique concepts (persons, places, etc.) as subjects seems a little advanced for a beginners' class.
In Chapter 10, "Controlled indexing languages," Professor Broughton states that a classification scheme is truly a language "since it permits communication and the exchange of information" (p. 89), a Statement with which this reviewer wholly agrees. Chapter 11, however, "Word-based approaches to retrieval," moves us to a different field altogether, offering only a narrow view of the whole world of controlled indexing languages such as thesauri, and presenting disconnected discussions of alphabetical filing, form and structure of subject headings, modern developments in alphabetical subject indexing, etc. Chapters 12 and 13 focus an the Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH), without even a passing reference to existing subject headings lists in other languages (French RAMEAU, German SWK, etc.). If it is not surprising to see a section on subject headings in a book on classification, the two subjects being taught together in most library schools, the location of this section in the middle of this particular book is more difficult to understand. Chapter 14 brings the reader back to classification, for a discussion of essentials of classification scheme application. The following five chapters present in turn each one of the three major and currently used bibliographic classification schemes, in order of increasing complexity and difficulty of application. The Library of Congress Classification (LCC), the easiest to use, is covered in chapters 15 and 16. The Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) deserves only a one-chapter treatment (Chapter 17), while the functionalities of the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC), which Professor Broughton knows extremely well, are described in chapters 18 and 19. Chapter 20 is a general discussion of faceted classification, on par with the first seven chapters for its theoretical content. Chapter 21, an interesting last chapter on managing classification, addresses down-to-earth matters such as the cost of classification, the need for re-classification, advantages and disadvantages of using print versions or e-versions of classification schemes, choice of classification scheme, general versus special scheme. But although the questions are interesting, the chapter provides only a very general overview of what appropriate answers might be. To facilitate reading and learning, summaries are strategically located at various places in the text, and always before switching to a related subject. Professor Broughton's choice of examples is always interesting, and sometimes even entertaining (see for example "Inside out: A brief history of underwear" (p. 71)). With many examples, however, and particularly those that appear in the five chapters an classification scheme applications, the novice reader would have benefited from more detailed explanations. On page 221, for example, "The history and social influence of the potato" results in this analysis of concepts: Potato - Sociology, and in the UDC class number: 635.21:316. What happened to the "history" aspect? Some examples are not very convincing: in Animals RT Reproduction and Art RT Reproduction (p. 102), the associative relationship is not appropriate as it is used to distinguish homographs and would do nothing to help either the indexer or the user at the retrieval stage.
Essential Classification is also an exercise book. Indeed, it contains a number of practical exercises and activities in every chapter, along with suggested answers. Unfortunately, the answers are too often provided without the justifications and explanations that students would no doubt demand. The author has taken great care to explain all technical terms in her text, but formal definitions are also gathered in an extensive 172-term Glossary; appropriately, these terms appear in bold type the first time they are used in the text. A short, very short, annotated bibliography of standard classification textbooks and of manuals for the use of major classification schemes is provided. A detailed 11-page index completes the set of learning aids which will be useful to an audience of students in their effort to grasp the basic concepts of the theory and the practice of document classification in a traditional environment. Essential Classification is a fine textbook. However, this reviewer deplores the fact that it presents only a very "traditional" view of classification, without much reference to newer environments such as the Internet where classification also manifests itself in various forms. In Essential Classification, books are always used as examples, and we have to take the author's word that traditional classification practices and tools can also be applied to other types of documents and elsewhere than in the traditional library. Vanda Broughton writes, for example, that "Subject headings can't be used for physical arrangement" (p. 101), but this is not entirely true. Subject headings can be used for physical arrangement of vertical files, for example, with each folder bearing a simple or complex heading which is then used for internal organization. And if it is true that subject headings cannot be reproduced an the spine of [physical] books (p. 93), the situation is certainly different an the World Wide Web where subject headings as metadata can be most useful in ordering a collection of hot links. The emphasis is also an the traditional paperbased, rather than an the electronic version of classification schemes, with excellent justifications of course. The reality is, however, that supporting organizations (LC, OCLC, etc.) are now providing great quality services online, and that updates are now available only in an electronic format and not anymore on paper. E-based versions of classification schemes could be safely ignored in a theoretical text, but they have to be described and explained in a textbook published in 2005. One last comment: Professor Broughton tends to use the same term, "classification" to represent the process (as in classification is grouping) and the tool (as in constructing a classification, using a classification, etc.). Even in the Glossary where classification is first well-defined as a process, and classification scheme as "a set of classes ...", the definition of classification scheme continues: "the classification consists of a vocabulary (...) and syntax..." (p. 296-297). Such an ambiguous use of the term classification seems unfortunate and unnecessarily confusing in an otherwise very good basic textbook an categorization of concepts and subjects, document organization and subject representation."

0.008966766 = product of:
  0.017933533 = sum of:
    0.017933533 = product of:
      0.035867065 = sum of:
        0.035867065 = weight(_text_:22 in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035867065 = score(doc=166,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13243347 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037818365 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 166, 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=166)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.00810253 = product of:
  0.01620506 = sum of:
    0.01620506 = product of:
      0.03241012 = sum of:
        0.03241012 = weight(_text_:p in 1586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03241012 = score(doc=1586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1359764 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037818365 = queryNorm
            0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 1586, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1586)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Enthält die Beiträge: DAVENPORT, E.: Implicit orders: documentary genres and organizational practice; ANDERSEN, J. u. F.S. CHRISTENSEN: Wittgenstein and indexing theory; OLSON, H.A.: Cultural discourses of classification: indigeous alternatives to the tradition of Aristotle, Dürkheim, and Foucault; FRÂNCU, V.: A universal classification system going through changes; JACOB, E.K. u. U. PRISS: Nontraditional indexing structures for the management of electronic resources; BROOKS, T.A.: Relevance auras: macro patterns and micro scatter; RUIZ, M.E. u. SRINIVASAN, P.: Combining machine learning and hierarchical indexing structures for text categorization; WEEDMAN, J.: Local practice and the growth of knowledge: decisions in subject access to digitized images

0.00810253 = product of:
  0.01620506 = sum of:
    0.01620506 = product of:
      0.03241012 = sum of:
        0.03241012 = weight(_text_:p in 2687) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03241012 = score(doc=2687,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1359764 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037818365 = queryNorm
            0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 2687, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2687)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0076857996 = product of:
  0.015371599 = sum of:
    0.015371599 = product of:
      0.030743198 = sum of:
        0.030743198 = weight(_text_:22 in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030743198 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13243347 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037818365 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 780, 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=780)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22.12.2007 17:22:31

0.0064048334 = product of:
  0.012809667 = sum of:
    0.012809667 = product of:
      0.025619334 = sum of:
        0.025619334 = weight(_text_:22 in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025619334 = score(doc=3483,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13243347 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037818365 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3483, 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=3483)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Pages

S.19-22

0.005729354 = product of:
  0.011458708 = sum of:
    0.011458708 = product of:
      0.022917416 = sum of:
        0.022917416 = weight(_text_:p in 2492) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022917416 = score(doc=2492,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1359764 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037818365 = queryNorm
            0.16853966 = fieldWeight in 2492, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2492)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: KO 35(2008) no.4, S.251-254 (B. Hjoerland): "The book is about the classification of chemical elements known as the periodical system. It is described as "one of the most potent icons in science [.] One sees periodic tables everywhere: in industrial labs, workshops, academic labs, and of course, lecture halls" (p. xiii). Among all taxonomies in all domains, there is probably none more respected and more useful than this one. As Scerri states (p. 25): The periodic table ranks as one of the most fruitful and unifying ideas in the whole of modern science, comparable perhaps with Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. Unlike such theories as Newtonian mechanics, the periodic table has not been falsified by developments in modern physics but has evolved while remaining essentially unchanged. After evolving for nearly 150 years through the work of numerous individuals, the periodic table remains at the heart of chemistry. This is mainly because it is of immense practical benefit for making predictions about all manner of chemical and physical properties of the elements and possibilities for bond formation. The periodic system provides the basic criteria for organizing knowledge about all the material stuff in the entire universe. It is thus a model that anybody with interests in knowledge organization (KO) should know. Knowledge about the history, philosophy and status of the periodic system also provides important insight for knowledge organization in general. . . . Scerri's book demonstrates how one of the most important classification systems has evolved and what kinds of conceptualizations and classification criteria are at work in it. It is probably the best book about the best classification system ever constructed. It should belong to any library supporting teaching and research in knowledge organization."

0.0054016868 = product of:
  0.0108033735 = sum of:
    0.0108033735 = product of:
      0.021606747 = sum of:
        0.021606747 = weight(_text_:p in 2759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021606747 = score(doc=2759,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1359764 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037818365 = queryNorm
            0.15890071 = fieldWeight in 2759, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2759)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

1. Introduction Theoretical context independent explanations of classification could enhance the universality of classification research and make knowledge about classification available to settings other than traditional libraries. There is a tremendous need for constructing classificatory structures in a range of settings many of which are far removed from the environment in which classification theory and research has been practiced in the last century and a half. The construction of classificatory structures an the Internet, intranets, and in knowledge management systems has received some attention lately. The question examined here is whether it is possible to create a single theory of classification that applies to the range of contexts in which classificatory structures are applied. The object of this paper is to question the assumption that bibliographic classification theory can resemble scientific theories. It is argued that the context of any classification influences the use and understanding of the classification to such a degree that the classification cannot be understood separate from its context. Furthermore, the development from being a novice classifier or classificationist to becoming an expert is explored. lt is assumed scientific theories must relate as much to the activity of novices as to the activity of experts and that scientific theories explain both what it is that novices do and what experts do. It is argued that expertise is achieved not through a correct application of a classification theory but through experiences and adjustment to a particular context and that the activities of novices are quite distinct from the activities of experts in that experts draws an the context of the situation and that novices do not. 2. Theory of Classification Langridge (1976) provides an account of the principles of constructing knowledge organization systems and the theoretical underpinnings of different approaches. He identifies four principles that have guided construction of knowledge organization systems: 1) ideological, 2) social purpose, 3) scientific, and 4) the disciplines. The ideological principle organizes knowledge according to an ideology that the knowledge organization system serves. Langridge gives the examples of "the Christian schemes of the Middle Ages and the Soviet scheme which substitutes for the Bible and Christianity the works of Marx and Lenin and the 'religion' of communism" (Langridge, 1976, p. 4-5).

0.0054016868 = product of:
  0.0108033735 = sum of:
    0.0108033735 = product of:
      0.021606747 = sum of:
        0.021606747 = weight(_text_:p in 2760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021606747 = score(doc=2760,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1359764 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037818365 = queryNorm
            0.15890071 = fieldWeight in 2760, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2760)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Special classifications have been somewhat neglected in KO compared to general classifications. The methodology of constructing special classifications is important, however, also for the methodology of constructing general classification schemes. The methodology of constructing special classifications can be regarded as one among about a dozen approaches to domain analysis. The methodology of (special) classification in LIS has been dominated by the rationalistic facet-analytic tradition, which, however, neglects the question of the empirical basis of classification. The empirical basis is much better grasped by, for example, bibliometric methods. Even the combination of rational and empirical methods is insufficient. This presentation will provide evidence for the necessity of historical and pragmatic methods for the methodology of classification and will point to the necessity of analyzing "paradigms". The presentation covers the methods of constructing classifications from Ranganathan to the design of ontologies in computer science and further to the recent "paradigm shift" in classification research. 1. Introduction Classification of a subject field is one among about eleven approaches to analyzing a domain that are specific for information science and in my opinion define the special competencies of information specialists (Hjoerland, 2002a). Classification and knowledge organization are commonly regarded as core qualifications of librarians and information specialists. Seen from this perspective one expects a firm methodological basis for the field. This paper tries to explore the state-of-the-art conceming the methodology of classification. 2. Classification: Science or non-science? As it is part of the curriculum at universities and subject in scientific journals and conferences like ISKO, orte expects classification/knowledge organization to be a scientific or scholarly activity and a scientific field. However, very often when information specialists classify or index documents and when they revise classification system, the methods seem to be rather ad hoc. Research libraries or scientific databases may employ people with adequate subject knowledge. When information scientists construct or evaluate systems, they very often elicit the knowledge from "experts" (Hjorland, 2002b, p. 260). Mostly no specific arguments are provided for the specific decisions in these processes.

0.0051238667 = product of:
  0.010247733 = sum of:
    0.010247733 = product of:
      0.020495467 = sum of:
        0.020495467 = weight(_text_:22 in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020495467 = score(doc=2346,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13243347 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.037818365 = 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(1/2)

Date

7.11.2008 15:22:04