Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  • × author_ss:"Buckland, M.K."
  1. Buckland, M.K.: Knowledge organization and the technology of intellectual work (2014) 0.02
    0.018529613 = product of:
      0.037059225 = sum of:
        0.037059225 = sum of:
          0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 1399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.005858987 = score(doc=1399,freq=6.0), product of:
              0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 1399, product of:
                2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                  6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1399)
          0.03120024 = weight(_text_:22 in 1399) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.03120024 = score(doc=1399,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046056706 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1399, 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=1399)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Since ancient times intellectual work has required tools for writing, documents for reading, and bibliographies for finding, not to mention more specialized techniques and technologies. Direct personal discussion is often impractical and we depend on documents instead. Document technology evolved through writing, printing, telecommunications, copying, and computing and facilitated an 'information flood' which motivated important knowledge organization initiatives, especially in the nineteenth century (library science, bibliography, documentation). Electronics and the Internet amplified these trends. As an example we consider an initiative to provide shared access to the working notes of editors preparing scholarly editions of historically important texts. For the future, we can project trends leading to ubiquitous recording, pervasive representations, simultaneous interaction regardless of geography, and powerful analysis and visualization of the records resulting from that ubiquitous recording. This evolving situation has implications for publishing, archival practice, and knowledge organization. The passing of time is of special interest in knowledge organization because knowing is cultural, living, and always changing. Technique and technology are also cultural ("material culture") but fixed and inanimate, as can be seen in the obsolescence of subject headings, which remain inscribed while culture moves on. The tension between the benefits of technology and the limitations imposed by fixity in a changing world provide a central tension in knowledge organization over time.
    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
  2. Buckland, M.K.: Obsolescence in subject description (2012) 0.00
    0.0028703054 = product of:
      0.005740611 = sum of:
        0.005740611 = product of:
          0.011481222 = sum of:
            0.011481222 = weight(_text_:a in 299) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.011481222 = score(doc=299,freq=16.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 299, product of:
                  4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                    16.0 = termFreq=16.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=299)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - The paper aims to explain the character and causes of obsolescence in assigned subject descriptors. Design/methodology/approach - The paper takes the form of a conceptual analysis with examples and reference to existing literature. Findings - Subject description comes in two forms: assigning the name or code of a subject to a document and assigning a document to a named subject category. Each method associates a document with the name of a subject. This naming activity is the site of tensions between the procedural need of information systems for stable records and the inherent multiplicity and instability of linguistic expressions. As languages change, previously assigned subject descriptions become obsolescent. The issues, tensions, and compromises involved are introduced. Originality/value - Drawing on the work of Robert Fairthorne and others, an explanation of the unavoidable obsolescence of assigned subject headings is presented. The discussion relates to libraries, but the same issues arise in any context in which subject description is expected to remain useful for an extended period of time.
    Type
    a
  3. Buckland, M.K.: Classifications, links and contexts : keynote address (2015) 0.00
    0.0026742492 = product of:
      0.0053484985 = sum of:
        0.0053484985 = product of:
          0.010696997 = sum of:
            0.010696997 = weight(_text_:a in 2287) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.010696997 = score(doc=2287,freq=20.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.20142901 = fieldWeight in 2287, 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=2287)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Links commonly refer to models developed for the World Wide Web Consortium, but these are a special case within the wider field of links and references used in resource discovery, including subject indexes to classifications, relationships used in vocabulary control, and search term recommender services. There is a tension between standardised relationships (symbolized by Paul Otlet's modernist universalism and the Semantic Web) and the particular, subjective situations in which individuals try to make sense (symbolized by Ludwik Fleck's emphasis on the influence of local cultural contexts). A subject index to a classification is a collection of links, sometimes qualified by context. Different domains (specialties) have their own cultural contexts and benefit from differently tailored links even when searching within the same resources. Making links is a descriptive, language activity. Probabilistic methods can create links from familiar to unfamiliar vocabularies economically. Links commonly use a limited set of relationships, mainly equivalence, inclusion, and inheritance. A far wider range of relationships would help resource discovery. Extending resource discovery requires not only same-facet links to reach additional resources but also links across different facets to provide explanatory context.
    Source
    Classification and authority control: expanding resource discovery: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar 2015, 29-30 October 2015, Lisbon, Portugal. Eds.: Slavic, A. u. M.I. Cordeiro
    Type
    a
  4. Buckland, M.K.: Information and society (2017) 0.00
    0.0018909799 = product of:
      0.0037819599 = sum of:
        0.0037819599 = product of:
          0.0075639198 = sum of:
            0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 3609) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0075639198 = score(doc=3609,freq=10.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 3609, 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=3609)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    iWe live in an information society, or so we are often told. But what does that mean? This volume in the MIT Press Essential Knowledge series offers a concise, informal account of the ways in which information and society are related and of our ever-increasing dependence on a complex multiplicity of messages, records, documents, and data. Using information in its everyday, nonspecialized sense, Michael Buckland explores the influence of information on what we know, the role of communication and recorded information in our daily lives, and the difficulty (or ease) of finding information. He shows that all this involves human perception, social behavior, changing technologies, and issues of trust. Buckland argues that every society is an "information society"; a "non-information society" would be a contradiction in terms. But the shift from oral and gestural communication to documents, and the wider use of documents facilitated by new technologies, have made our society particularly information intensive. Buckland describes the rising flood of data, documents, and records, outlines the dramatic long-term growth of documents, and traces the rise of techniques to cope with them. He examines the physical manifestation of information as documents, the emergence of data sets, and how documents and data are discovered and used. He explores what individuals and societies do with information; offers a basic summary of how collected documents are arranged and described; considers the nature of naming; explains the uses of metadata; and evaluates selection methods, considering relevance, recall, and precision.
  5. Buckland, M.K.: Interrogating spatial analogies relating to knowledge organization : Paul Otlet and others (2012) 0.00
    0.0011839407 = product of:
      0.0023678814 = sum of:
        0.0023678814 = product of:
          0.0047357627 = sum of:
            0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 5555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0047357627 = score(doc=5555,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 5555, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5555)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Type
    a