Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.012625352 = product of:
  0.025250703 = sum of:
    0.025250703 = product of:
      0.050501406 = sum of:
        0.050501406 = weight(_text_:i in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050501406 = score(doc=40,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.29466638 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In information science, classification systems are conventionally viewed as tools for representing knowledge in the universe of ideas, the human mind, or one or more sets of documents. In this view, developing and maintaining relationships and structures in classification schemes must primarily consider two abstract ingredients: i) a set of concepts for one or more domains; and ii) a (set of) unambiguous structure(s) to articulate the relationships that persist between the various concepts that comprise the classificatory structure. We contend that design decisions pertaining to the structure of a classification system consist of far more than simply creating links between the elements in a particular set of concepts. Ultimately, a simplistic tool view of classifications implies that the construction is little more than a technical task in a very narrow sense: that classificatory concepts are viewed as standard representations of what are assumed to be the central and/or important topics in the knowledge domain(s), and that there is i) an unambiguous Platonic ideal or universal consensus that determines how the links will be generated within a classificatory structure; or, conversely, ii) that there are no general structures and relationships available at all, but that only diverse individual knowledge structures exist, which cannot be reconciled into a general organization of knowledge

0.008927471 = product of:
  0.017854942 = sum of:
    0.017854942 = product of:
      0.035709884 = sum of:
        0.035709884 = weight(_text_:i in 6391) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035709884 = score(doc=6391,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17138503 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.045439374 = queryNorm
            0.20836058 = fieldWeight in 6391, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7717297 = idf(docFreq=2765, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6391)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper takes a second look at three prevailing main themes in knowledge organization: i) the academic disciplines as the main structural principle; ii) the fiction/non-fiction distinction; and iii) the appropriate unit of analysis in online retrieval systems. The history and origin of bibliographic classification [Dewey, Bliss, Mills, Beghtol] are discussed from the perspective of pragmatist philosophy and social studies of science [Kuhn, Merton, Reich]. Choices of structural principles in different schemes are found to rely on more or less implicit philosophical foundations, ranging from rationalism to pragmatism. It is further shown how the increasing application of faceted structures as basic structural principles in universal classification schemes [DDC, UDC] impose rationalistic principles and structures for knowledge organization which are not in alignment with the development of knowledge in the covered disciplines. Further evidence of rationalism in knowledge organization is the fiction/non-fiction distinction, excluding the important role of artistic resources for, in particular, humanistic research. Finally, for the analysis of appropriate bibliographic unit, it is argued that there is a need to shift towards a semiotic approach, founded on an understanding of intertextuality, rather than applying standard principles of hierarchical decomposition of documents. It is concluded that a change in classification research is needed, founded on a more historical and social understanding of knowledge