Search (15 results, page 1 of 1)

0.024208048 = product of:
  0.048416097 = sum of:
    0.048416097 = sum of:
      0.0047357627 = weight(_text_:a in 75) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0047357627 = score(doc=75,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 75, 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=75)
      0.043680333 = weight(_text_:22 in 75) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043680333 = score(doc=75,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16128273 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046056706 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 75, 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=75)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

International forum on information and documentation. 22(1997) no.2, S.3-15

Type

a

0.003827074 = product of:
  0.007654148 = sum of:
    0.007654148 = product of:
      0.015308296 = sum of:
        0.015308296 = weight(_text_:a in 1157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015308296 = score(doc=1157,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.28826174 = fieldWeight in 1157, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1157)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.003827074 = product of:
  0.007654148 = sum of:
    0.007654148 = product of:
      0.015308296 = sum of:
        0.015308296 = weight(_text_:a in 6168) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015308296 = score(doc=6168,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.28826174 = fieldWeight in 6168, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6168)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.00270615 = product of:
  0.0054123 = sum of:
    0.0054123 = product of:
      0.0108246 = sum of:
        0.0108246 = weight(_text_:a in 2601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0108246 = score(doc=2601,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.20383182 = fieldWeight in 2601, 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=2601)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0024857575 = product of:
  0.004971515 = sum of:
    0.004971515 = product of:
      0.00994303 = sum of:
        0.00994303 = weight(_text_:a in 7300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00994303 = score(doc=7300,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 7300, 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=7300)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Mobilising the information stored in documents to advance learning and social well-being provides information science with a fundamental social objective. It also presents it with a characteristic set of technical and professional problems. Until recently, information storage and retrieval systems, of which the library is one of the oldest and most important examples, have not provided a direct solutuion to the problem of providing access to needed information. Instead they have attempted to identify and provide physical access to written or printed documents that might contain information that is needed or might be useful. Perhaps creating systems to substitute what documents may be about for what documents contain is a process of realistic simplfication in the face of overwhleming technical and 'epistemological' problems. But it is speculative approaches to overcoming these problems that are the subject of this paper

Type

a

0.0023919214 = product of:
  0.0047838427 = sum of:
    0.0047838427 = product of:
      0.009567685 = sum of:
        0.009567685 = weight(_text_:a in 3543) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009567685 = score(doc=3543,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 3543, 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=3543)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

What exactly are the Wellsian World Brain or World Encyclopedia ideas to which reference is so often made? What did they mean for Wells? What might they mean for us? This article examines closely what Wells says about them in his book, World Brain (1938), and in a number of works that elaborate what is expressed there. The article discusses aspects of the context within which Wells's conception of a new world encyclopedia organization was formulated and its role in the main trust of his thought. The article argues that Wells's ideas about a World Brain are embedded in a strucutre of thought that may be shown to entail on the one hand notions of social repression and control that must give us pause, and on the other a concept of the nature and organization of knowledge that may well be no longer acceptable. By examining Wells's ideas in some detail and attempting to articulate the systems of belief which shaped tham and which otherwise lie silent beneath them, the author hopes to provoke questions about current theorizing about the nature of global information systems and emergent intelligence

Type

a

0.0023919214 = product of:
  0.0047838427 = sum of:
    0.0047838427 = product of:
      0.009567685 = sum of:
        0.009567685 = weight(_text_:a in 4331) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009567685 = score(doc=4331,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.18016359 = fieldWeight in 4331, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=4331)
      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 2600) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=2600,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 2600, 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=2600)
      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 3089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009471525 = score(doc=3089,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 3089, 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=3089)
      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 3964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009076704 = score(doc=3964,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 3964, 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=3964)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Examines some of the difficulties for the historian of information science that arises from the lack of of agreement as to what precisely constitutes information science and from its commonly accepted interdisciplinary nature. Examines in this connection Machlup and Mansfield's ideas about a narrow information science and information science as a composite of disciplinary chunks. The history of information science is gaining an identity both bibliographically and socially. As a condition of their organization, reproduction, and control all societies have evolved their own disctinctive ways of managing information. The history of information science can be considered to extend far beyond the last 50 years where attention is commonly focused. In view of Braudel's notations or duree longue, moyenne and courte, periodicity provides a new perspective for the history of information science. Introduces the notions of synchrony and diachrony to suggest other approaches to the historical study of aspects of information science

Type

a

0.0020714647 = product of:
  0.0041429293 = sum of:
    0.0041429293 = product of:
      0.008285859 = sum of:
        0.008285859 = weight(_text_:a in 5548) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008285859 = score(doc=5548,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 5548, 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=5548)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper aims to discuss the future of information history by interrogating its past. It presents in outline an account of the conditions and the trajectory of events that have culminated in today's "information revolution" and "information society." It suggests that we have already passed through at least two information orders or revolutions as we transition, first, from the long era of print that began over five hundred years ago with Gutenberg and the printing press. We have then moved through a predigital era after World War II, finally to a new era characterized by the advent of the ubiquitous technologies that are considered to herald a new "digital revolution" and the creation of new kind of "information society." It argues that it is possible to see that the past is now opening itself to new kinds of scrutiny as a result of the apparently transformative changes that are currently taking place. It suggests that the future of the history of information science is best thought of as part of a still unrealized convergence of diverse historical approaches to understanding how societies are constituted, sustained, reproduced, and changed in part by information and the infrastructures that emerge to manage information access and use. In conclusion it suggests that different bodies of historical knowledge and historical research methodologies have emerged as we move into the digital world that might be usefully brought together in the future to broaden and deepen explorations of important historical information phenomena from Gutenberg to Google.

Type

a

0.0020506454 = product of:
  0.004101291 = sum of:
    0.004101291 = product of:
      0.008202582 = sum of:
        0.008202582 = weight(_text_:a in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008202582 = score(doc=76,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 76, 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=76)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The ideas and practices embraced by the term documentation introduced by Paul Otlet and his colleagues to describe the work of the International Institute of Bibliography (later FID) that they set up in Brussels in 1895, constituted a new discursive formation. The key concepts for information science were implicit in and operationalized by what was created within the International Institute of Bibliography in 1895 and the decades that followed. Important aspects of the origins of information science were contained within or became an extension of the discursive format labelled documentation

Footnote

Contribution to part 1 of a 2 part series on the history of documentation and information science

Type

a

0.001757696 = product of:
  0.003515392 = sum of:
    0.003515392 = product of:
      0.007030784 = sum of:
        0.007030784 = weight(_text_:a in 918) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007030784 = score(doc=918,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 918, 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=918)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The availability in electronic form of information generally and of new kinds of information will lead to a redefinition and integration of the different categories of information organizations which have been created to manage different formats and media such as print and its surrogates (libraries), objects (museums), and the paper records of organizational activity (archives and records repositories). Differences in organisational philosophy, function, and technique generated by the requirements of these different formats do not longer apply in the same way when there is a common electronic format. It is clear that if electronic sources of information are to be effectively managed for future access by historians and others, differences between libraries, archives and museums will largely have to disappear

Type

a

0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 4935) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=4935,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 4935, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4935)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Most historical explanations of interfaces are technological and start with the computer age. We propose a different approach by focusing on the history of library and information sciences, particularly on the case of Paul Otlet (1868-1944). Otlet's attempts to integrate and distribute knowledge imply the need for interfaces, and his conceptualizations are reminiscent of modern versions of interfaces that are intended to facilitate manual and mechanical data integration and enrichment. Our discussion is based on a selection from the hundreds of images of what we may think of as "interfaces" that Otlet made or commissioned during his life. We examine his designs for interfaces that involve bibliographic cards, that allow data enrichment, his attempts to visualize interfaces between the sciences and between universal and personal classifications, and even his attempts to create interfaces to the world. In particular, we focus on the implications of Otlet's dissection of the organization of the book for the creation of interfaces to a new order of public knowledge. Our view is that the creative ways in which he faces tensions of scalability, representation, and perception of relationships between knowledge objects might be of interest today.

Type

a

0.0014647468 = product of:
  0.0029294936 = sum of:
    0.0029294936 = product of:
      0.005858987 = sum of:
        0.005858987 = weight(_text_:a in 2545) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005858987 = score(doc=2545,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 2545, 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=2545)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The work of the Belgian internationalist and documentalist, Paul Otlet (1868-1944), and his colleagues in Brussles, forms an important and neglected part of the history of information science. They developed a complex of organizations that are similar in important respects functionally to contemporary hypertext/hypermedia systems. These organizations effectively provided for the integration on bibliographic, image and textual databases. Chunks of text on cards or separate sheets were created according to 'the monographic principle' and their physical organization managed by the UDC, created by the Belgians from Melvil Dewey's DDC. This article discusses Otlet's concept of the Office of Documentation and, as examples of an approach to actual hypertext systems, several special Offices of Documentation set up in the International Office of Bibliography. In his Traité de Documentation of 1934, one of the first systematic treatises on what today we would call information science, Otlet speculated imaginatively about telecommunications, text-voice conversion, and what is needed in computer workstations, though of course he does not use this terminology. By assessing how the intellectual paradigm of 19th century positivism shaped Otlet's thinking, this study suggests how, despite its apparent contemporaneity, what he proposed was in fact conceptually different from the hypertext systems that have been developed or speculated about today. Such as analysis paradoxically also suggests the irony that a 'deconstructionist' reading of accounts of theses systems might find embedded in them the postivist approach to knowledge that the system designers would seem on the face of it explicitely to have repudiated

Type

a