Search (75 results, page 3 of 4)

0.0020714647 = product of:
  0.0041429293 = sum of:
    0.0041429293 = product of:
      0.008285859 = sum of:
        0.008285859 = weight(_text_:a in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008285859 = score(doc=260,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 260, 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=260)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Studying works allows us to see empirically the problem of instantiation of works, both at large and in the catalog. The linkage of relationships among works is a critical goal for information retrieval because the ability to comprehend and select a specific instantiation of a work is crucial for the advancement of scholarship. Hence, the present study examines the instantiation of works among a set of entities known to be popular-best selling books of the 20th century. A sample of best selling works (fiction and non-fiction) from 1900-1999 was constructed. For each work in the sample, all bibliographic records were identified in both OCLC and RLIN as well as instantiations on the World Wide Web. All but one work in the sample exists in multiple instantiations; many have large networks; and complex networks of instantiations have begun to appear in full text on the Web. The results of this study demonstrate the importance of continuing to gather statistical data about works. Solutions devised for the catalog will need to be modified for use in the chaotic environment of the World Wide Web and its successors.

Type

a

0.0020714647 = product of:
  0.0041429293 = sum of:
    0.0041429293 = product of:
      0.008285859 = sum of:
        0.008285859 = weight(_text_:a in 811) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008285859 = score(doc=811,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 811, 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=811)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We understand "theory" to be a system of testable explanatory statements derived from research. In knowledge organization, the generation of theory has moved from an epistemic stance of pragmatism (based on observation of the construction of retrieval tools), to empiricism (based on the results of empirical research). In the nineteenth century, Panizzi (1841), Cutter (1876), and Dewey (1876), developed very pragmatic tools (i.e., catalogs and classifications), explaining as they did so the principles by which their tools were constructed. By 1950, key papers at a University of Chicago Graduate Library School conference on "Bibliographic Organization" recorded the role of bibliographic organization in civilization (Clapp, 1950) and deemed classification the basis of bibliographic organization (Shera, 1950). In 1961, the International Conference on Cataloguing Principles in Paris brought together key thinkers on the design of catalogs. Wilson (1968) expounded a system for bibliographic apparatus, and provided the framework for empirical theoretical development. In 2000, Svenonius asserted that knowledge organization is accomplished through a bibliographic language (or, more properly through a complex set of bibliographic languages), with semantics, syntax, pragmatics, and rules to govern their implementation. Logical positivism notwithstanding, rationalist and historicist stances have begun to come to the fore of late through the promulgation of qualitative methods, most notably those employed in classification, user-interface design, and bibliometric research.

Type

a

0.0020714647 = product of:
  0.0041429293 = sum of:
    0.0041429293 = product of:
      0.008285859 = sum of:
        0.008285859 = weight(_text_:a in 2099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008285859 = score(doc=2099,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 2099, 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=2099)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In KO volume 40 number 3 (2013) I included an editorial about keywords-both about the absence prior to that date of designated keywords in articles in Knowledge Organization, and about the misuse of the idea by some other journal publications (Smiraglia 2013). At the time I was chagrined to discover how little correlation there was across the formal indexing of a small set of papers from our journal, and especially to see how little correspondence there was between actual keywords appearing in the published texts, and any of the indexing supplied by either Web of Science or LISTA (Thomson Reuters' Web of ScienceT (WoS) and EBSCOHost's Library and Information Science and Technology Abstracts with Full Text (LISTA). The idea of a keyword arose in the early days of automated indexing, when it was discovered that using terms that actually occurred in full texts (or, in the earliest days, in titles and abstracts) as search "keys," usually in Boolean combinations, provided fairly precise recall in small, contextually confined text corpora. A recent Wikipedia entry (Keywords 2015) embues keywords with properties of structural reasoning, but notes that they are "key" among the most frequently occurring terms in a text corpus. The jury is still out on whether keyword retrieval is better than indexing with subject headings, but in general, keyword searches in large, unstructured text corpora (which is what we have today) are imprecise and result in large recall sets with many irrelevant hits (see the recent analysis by Gross, Taylor and Joudrey (2014). Thus it seems inadvisable to me, as editor, especially of a journal on knowledge organization, to facilitate imprecise indexing of our journal's content.

Type

a

0.0020714647 = product of:
  0.0041429293 = sum of:
    0.0041429293 = product of:
      0.008285859 = sum of:
        0.008285859 = weight(_text_:a in 4528) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008285859 = score(doc=4528,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 4528, 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=4528)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Fifteenth International ISKO Conference (ISKO 15) took place in Porto, Portugal in early July 2018 at the Faculty of Arts and Humanities of the University of Porto, Department of Communication and Information Sciences. The main theme was "challenges and opportunities for knowledge organization in the digital age;" three sub-themes were: foundations and methods, interoperability and societal challenges. A feature of the conference was a special session devoted to the memory of ISKO founder Ingetraut Dahlberg. The proceedings contain 105 formal research papers as well as abstracts for fourteen posters and two workshops. Informetric analyses produce a characteristic picture for an international ISKO conference, with core concepts of KO and KOSs embracing digital age concepts of social media and the semantic web alongside new library conceptual data models. On ISKO 15's bookshelf were articles by Hjørland, Dahlberg, Tennis and Beghtol, and books by Ranganathan and Szostak, Gnoli and López-Huertas. But also books by Adler, García Gutiérrez, Holland and Verborgh and FRBR/LRM were present as were articles by Adler, Kleineberg and Gruber. Core ISKO is joined on this bookshelf by new articles from the ISKO Encyclopedia, by works pointing toward ethical approaches to KO, and by works pointing toward KO for a semantic web-challenges and opportunities for KO, as the conference theme indicated.

Type

a

0.0020506454 = product of:
  0.004101291 = sum of:
    0.004101291 = product of:
      0.008202582 = sum of:
        0.008202582 = weight(_text_:a in 5627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008202582 = score(doc=5627,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 5627, 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=5627)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Random samples of works were drawn from the catalogs of the Bobst Library, New York University, and the Burke Library, Union Theological Seminary, New York. Results indicated: 1) derivative bibliographic relationships existed for somewhere between one-half and two-thirds of theological works; 2) there was a positive correlation between the age of the progenitor work and the extent of derivation; and, 3) forms and genres were useful in a limited way for predicting the incidence of derivative relationships in theological literature. Qualitative analysis reveals the important aspects of the genres "revelation" and "scripture" among theological works.

Type

a

0.0020506454 = product of:
  0.004101291 = sum of:
    0.004101291 = product of:
      0.008202582 = sum of:
        0.008202582 = weight(_text_:a in 3874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008202582 = score(doc=3874,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 3874, 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=3874)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

We take a small sample of works and compare how these are classified within both the Universal Decimal Classification and the Basic concepts Classification. We examine notational length, expressivity, network effects, and the number of subject strings. One key finding is that BCC typically synthesizes many more terms than UDC in classifying a particular document - but the length of classificatory notations is roughly equivalent for the two KOSs. BCC captures documents with fewer subject strings (generally one) but these are more complex.

Type

a

0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 3573) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=3573,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 3573, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3573)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 1761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=1761,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 1761, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1761)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

For a long time music librarians have grappled with the problem of cataloguing music scores along with physical recordings, including videorecordings of musical performances, in such a way as to collocate als physical forms in an intelligible order. The critical problems are, how to identify the properties of musical bibliographic entities and then how to control each property in the bibliographic universe and in each of the subsets of that universe, such as the library OPAC. Examines the concept of the 'musical work' as it has been decribed by bibliographers, cataloguers and scholars of bibliographic control. Concludes that there is ample evidence that equality exists among the representations of a musical work regardless of their physical formats. An understanding of the concept of the musical work should obviate the need to reconsider forms of access under current cataloguing practice and lead the way to the next generation of bibliographic control for musical works

Type

a

0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 5983) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=5983,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 5983, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=5983)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 1119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=1119,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 1119, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1119)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Works are key entities in the universe of recorded knowledge. Works are those deliberate creations (known variously as opera, oeuvres, Werke, etc.) that constitute individual sets of created conceptions that stand as the formal records of knowledge. In the information retrieval domain, the work as opposed to the document, has only recently received focused attention. In this paper, the definition of the work as an entity for information retrieval is examined. A taxonomic definition (that is, a definition built around a taxonomy) is presented. An epistemological perspective aids in understanding the components of the taxonomic definition. Works, thus defined as entities for information retrieval, are seen to constitute sets of varying instantiations of abstract creations. These variant instantiations must be explicitly identified in future systems for documentary information retrieval. An expanded perception of works, such as that presented in this paper, helps us understand the variety of ways in which mechanisms for their control and retrieval might better be shaped in future.

Type

a

0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 1674) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=1674,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 1674, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1674)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 4153) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=4153,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 4153, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4153)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.0020296127 = product of:
  0.0040592253 = sum of:
    0.0040592253 = product of:
      0.008118451 = sum of:
        0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 2304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008118451 = score(doc=2304,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 2304, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2304)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

At the last Digital Library Conference in London two workshops took place - both (in parallel) devoted to the use of visualization in presenting and navigating large collections. One was entitled Search Is Over! and of the other Knowledge Maps and Information Retrieval. This anecdotal evidence stands for the growing and accelerating quest for visually enhanced interfaces to collections. Researchers from information visualization, computer human interaction, information retrieval, bibliometrics, digital humanities, art and network theory in parallel, often also in ignorance of each other, sometimes in interdisciplinary alliances are engaged in this quest. This paper reviews the current state-of-the-art, with special emphasis on the work of the COST Action TD1210 Knowescape. We discuss in more depth two examples of the use of visual analytics to create a fingerprint of an archive or a library, a data archive and a national library. We present examples from the micro-level of monitoring activities of users, over the meso-level to visualize features of bibliographic records, to macroscopes (a term coined by Katy Borner) into libraries and archives. We also discuss how different ways to perform visual analytics inform each other, how they are related to questions of data mining and statistical analysis, and which methods need to be combined or which communities need to collaborate. To illustrate some of these points we analysed Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) codes in bibliographic datasets of the National Library of Portugal. This is a potential still awaiting to be fully exploited in improving interfaces to subject access and management of classification data. It should be noted that UDC notation strings stored in bibliographic databases require specialist knowledge in both UDC and programming for any visualization tools to be applied. This UDC Seminar which is devoted to authority control is an opportunity to draw attention to the possibilities in visualization whose wider application depends on the readily structured, richer and more transparent subject metadata.

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

0.001913537 = product of:
  0.003827074 = sum of:
    0.003827074 = product of:
      0.007654148 = sum of:
        0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 2772) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007654148 = score(doc=2772,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 2772, 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=2772)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Works are key entities in the universe of recorded knowledge. Works are those deliberate creations (known variously as opera, oeuvres, Werke, etc.) that stand as the formal records of knowledge. Core bodies of works-canons-function to preserve and disseminate the parameters of a culture. There is some evidence that popularity of works is a contributing factor to the phenomena of mutation and derivation. In particular, novels demonstrated the high incidence of both derivation and mutation of a popular literary work. Commercial interests combine with cultural forces to propel the evolution of popular novels as interest in them spreads across language and geographic boundaries. Earlier studies support a concept of the work as a collaborative entity that is changed over time by those who embrace it. The more popular the work, the more likely we will observe change over time. Cultural boundaries are crossed by the mutation of best-selling works, as their translations find collaborative roles in cultures different from that in which the work originated. The study of works that have appeared an best-seller lists (one measure of cultural embrace, or "popularity") might yield useful data for comprehension of the content and extent of the canon of popular works. In the present study, a sample of best-selling works (fiction and non-fiction) from 1900-1999 is examined. Preliminary evidence from the first phase of this study demonstrates the consistency of the theoretical functioning of works as cultural entities. That is, works that enter a canon derive and mutate dramatically, while those that do not remain unchanged. "Popularity" is not demonstrated as equated with "bestselling," but all best-selling books in the sample generated more than one edition.

Type

a

0.001913537 = product of:
  0.003827074 = sum of:
    0.003827074 = product of:
      0.007654148 = sum of:
        0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 4546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007654148 = score(doc=4546,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 4546, 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=4546)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Knowledge Organization (KO) as a domain is evolving rapidly and its boundaries are being pushed amoeba-like in every direction as a consequence. All that readers of this journal need to do to find evidence of this evolution is to look at the journal itself, which moves from quarterly to bi-monthly with this issue. While the peer-review system serves a gate-keeping function on the intension of the domain, making certain that articles appearing in this journal align with accepted conceptual tenets, the system simultaneously serves a different function (perhaps we can align it with the opening of gates) for KO conferences, where it is the extension of the domain that is constantly being probed and tested by new research. Gate-keeping is an important function for any domain, which is why peer review is a hallmark of ISKO's regional and international conferences as well as this journal. So it is even more impressive to consider these two functions together, which at once serve to intensify the core concepts of knowledge organization and simultaneously to stretch their application into new corners of the knowledge domain. It is a sort of inspiration-expiration dichotomous action, solidifying the core on the intake and pushing the boundaries (or axes, as Tennis (2003) has called them) on the outgo. Indeed, the new "Forum: Philosophy of Classification," and occasional feature beginning with this issue, which has been generated by Birger Hjørland, chair of ISKO's newly active Scientific Advisory Council, is an example of this dichotomous action. For further examples we can turn to the contents of regional and international KO conferences, which provide interesting temporal glimpses of this evolutionary process. In this editorial I will present a summary analysis of the August 2007 Mexico City conference "I Simposio Internacional sobre Organizacion del Conocimiento, Bibliotecologia y Terminologia," whose proceedings were just available in print in 2009.

Type

a

0.001913537 = product of:
  0.003827074 = sum of:
    0.003827074 = product of:
      0.007654148 = sum of:
        0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 1513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007654148 = score(doc=1513,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 1513, 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=1513)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Elements of Knowledge Organization is a unique and original work introducing the fundamental concepts related to the field of Knowledge Organization (KO). There is no other book like it currently available. The author begins the book with a comprehensive discussion of "knowledge" and its associated theories. He then presents a thorough discussion of the philosophical underpinnings of knowledge organization. The author walks the reader through the Knowledge Organization domain expanding the core topics of ontologies, taxonomies, classification, metadata, thesauri and domain analysis. The author also presents the compelling challenges associated with the organization of knowledge. This is the first book focused on the concepts and theories associated with KO domain. Prior to this book, individuals wishing to study Knowledge Organization in its broadest sense would generally collocate their own resources, navigating the various methods and models and perhaps inadvertently excluding relevant materials. This text cohesively links key and related KO material and provides a deeper understanding of the domain in its broadest sense and with enough detail to truly investigate its many facets. This book will be useful to both graduate and undergraduate students in the computer science and information science domains both as a text and as a reference book. It will also be valuable to researchers and practitioners in the industry who are working on website development, database administration, data mining, data warehousing and data for search engines. The book is also beneficial to anyone interested in the concepts and theories associated with the organization of knowledge. Dr. Richard P. Smiraglia is a world-renowned author who is well published in the Knowledge Organization domain. Dr. Smiraglia is editor-in-chief of the journal Knowledge Organization, published by Ergon-Verlag of Würzburg. He is a professor and member of the Information Organization Research Group at the School of Information Studies at University of Wisconsin Milwaukee.

0.001913537 = product of:
  0.003827074 = sum of:
    0.003827074 = product of:
      0.007654148 = sum of:
        0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 4794) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007654148 = score(doc=4794,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 4794, 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=4794)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Type

a

0.001913537 = product of:
  0.003827074 = sum of:
    0.003827074 = product of:
      0.007654148 = sum of:
        0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 5401) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.007654148 = score(doc=5401,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 5401, 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=5401)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

NARCIS-National Academic Research and Collaborations Information System is the national research portal for the Netherlands' data and research archiving, which is governed by its own NARCIS Classification. The current instantiation of the classification dates from 2015. The classification is currently made up of two classes D for the sciences broadly, and E for interdisciplinary areas. The NARCIS Classification is designed specifically and with care for the contents of the NARCIS data portal. The classification mostly represents the sciences. A few anomalous situations are visible in the ontology of the classification: the humanities occupy one division within the sciences, placed between the life sciences and law; and, the treatment of interdisciplinarity, for which a separate class E is set aside for interdisciplinary sciences. A dump of the NARCIS database was used to analyze the population of the NARCIS classification. The life sciences occupy 34% of the NARCIS database. A framework for research networking systems reveals the NARCIS database and its classification meet most objectives, with the only lapse being the output of entities and attributes to ontologies. The NARCIS Classification is also an occupational classification. The NARCIS Classification supports a vital research portal that, in turn, supports a nationally-coordinated research effort designed to provide better inter-institutional communication of scholarly productivity, thus is in itself an information institution, in which domain-dependence is part of its cultural imperative. The NARCIS Classification incorporates an example of top-down politics in which funded disciplines are included and best represented. A perhaps unintended consequence is the encapsulation of forced views. Trajectories for further discussion with regard to continued development of the NARCIS Classification include identity, interoperability, interdisciplinarity, and synthesis.

Type

a

0.0018909799 = product of:
  0.0037819599 = sum of:
    0.0037819599 = product of:
      0.0075639198 = sum of:
        0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 2333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0075639198 = score(doc=2333,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 2333, 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=2333)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The 10th International ISKO Conference is now history, and it was a dynamic bit of history at that. Knowledge organization (the domain) is lively and engaged and engaging, and all of us who work in the domain are in a good spot to benefit from the new trajectories provided by the scholars who brought their research forward this year. As is our custom in this journal, I will leave it to the Classification editor to prepare a full report on the conference. But the Proceedings volume (Arsenault and Tennis 2008), as usual, is a rich resource for analysis of the domain at this particular moment in time. By studying the contents, and in particular by applying bibliometric techniques, we can gain useful insight into the direction of the evolution of knowledge organization. Hjørland (2002) includes bibliometric techniques in his list of eleven approaches to domain analysis because, as he says (p. 436), "it is empirical and based on detailed analysis of connections between individual documents." With reference (and due deference) to White's (2003) analysis of authors as citers, I hereby present this brief analysis of what one might find on the bookshelves of this year's ISKO authors.

Type

a

0.0018909799 = product of:
  0.0037819599 = sum of:
    0.0037819599 = product of:
      0.0075639198 = sum of:
        0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 1390) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0075639198 = score(doc=1390,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 1390, 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=1390)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Recently I was asked in earnest why KO doesn't have keywords. To which my reply was to LOL. Really-I laughed, out loud, and then I said "but it does, in every line!" I decided to undertake a little editorial experiment by using the contents of the last two issues of Knowledge Organization - Volume 40 (2013) number 1 contained an editorial, 4 peer-reviewed articles, a book review, a classification issues report, and two substantive letters to the editor. Volume 40 (2013) number 2 contained 5 peer-reviewed articles, some ISKO news, and a bibliographic essay book review; unfortunately at the time this was written number 2 had not been indexed by either service. I decided to compare keywords drawn from Thompson Reuters' Web of ScienceT and EBSCOHost's Library and Information Science and Technology Abstracts with Full Text (LISTA) to the actual keywords pulled from the texts. Full texts were uploaded to Voyeur from Hermeneutica.ca -The Rhetoric of Text Analysis (http://hermeneuti.ca/voyeur/) to derive most frequently used terms (applying an English language stoplist). Table 1 contains those comparative results.

Type

a