Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.01749311 = product of:
  0.05247933 = sum of:
    0.010096614 = weight(_text_:in in 675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010096614 = score(doc=675,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.17003182 = fieldWeight in 675, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=675)
    0.042382717 = weight(_text_:und in 675) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042382717 = score(doc=675,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.438048 = fieldWeight in 675, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=675)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Der multiperspektivische Beitrag analysiert mit einem intersektionalen und qualitativen Ansatz diskriminierende Begriffe, Auslassungen und implizit abwertende Strukturen bibliothekarischer Klassifikationen des Globalen Nordens. Am Beispiel der Regensburger Verbundklassifikation (RVK) werden rassistische und sexistische Schnitt- sowie Leerstellen in der Repräsentation queerer Lebens-, Liebes- und Lustentwürfe aufgezeigt. Mögliche Lösungen unter Einbeziehung der Communitys runden den Beitrag ab.

Footnote

Beitrag in enem Themenheft 'Critical Library Perspectives'.

0.016708793 = product of:
  0.050126377 = sum of:
    0.006246961 = weight(_text_:in in 783) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006246961 = score(doc=783,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.10520181 = fieldWeight in 783, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=783)
    0.043879416 = weight(_text_:und in 783) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043879416 = score(doc=783,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.09675359 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.4535172 = fieldWeight in 783, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=783)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Dieser Beitrag nimmt eine informationswissenschaftliche Perspektive ein und betrachtet das Phänomen der Klassifikation als Methode und System der Wissensorganisation. Ein Klassifikationssystem wird dabei als Wissensorganisationssystem (engl. knowledge organization system) verstanden, das vor allem im Bereich der Information und Dokumentation zum Einsatz kommt, um dokumentarische Bezugseinheiten (DBE) mit einem kontrollierten Vokabular zu beschreiben (s. Kapitel B 1 Einführung Wissensorganisation). Als eine solche Dokumentationssprache zeichnet sich ein Klassifikationssystem typischerweise durch seine systematische Ordnung aus und dient der inhaltlichen Groberschließung, eignet sich aber auch als Aufstellungssystematik und Hilfsmittel bei der Recherche wie etwa als systematischer Sucheinstieg oder thematischer Filter für Treffermengen. Beim Information Retrieval liegt die Stärke der klassifikatorischen Erschließung durch das hohe Abstraktionsniveau in Überblicks- und Vollständigkeitsrecherchen.

Source

Grundlagen der Informationswissenschaft. Hrsg.: Rainer Kuhlen, Dirk Lewandowski, Wolfgang Semar und Christa Womser-Hacker. 7., völlig neu gefasste Ausg

0.0019676082 = product of:
  0.011805649 = sum of:
    0.011805649 = weight(_text_:in in 1099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011805649 = score(doc=1099,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.19881277 = fieldWeight in 1099, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1099)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Hierarchies abound to help us organize our world. A hierarchy places items into a general order, where more 'general' is also more 'abstract'. The etymology of hierarchy is grounded in notions of religious and social rank. This article, after a historical review, focuses on knowledge systems, an interloper of the term hierarchy since at least the 1800s. Hierarchies in knowledge systems include taxonomies, classification systems, or thesauri in information science, and systems for representing information and knowledge to computers, notably ontologies and knowledge representation languages. Hierarchies are the logical underpinning of inference and reasoning in these systems, as well as the scaffolding for classification and inheritance. Hierarchies in knowledge systems express subsumption relations that have flexible variants, which we can represent algorithmically, and thus computationally. This article dissects that variability, leading to a proposed typology of hierarchies useful to knowledge systems. The article argues through a perspective informed by Charles Peirce that natural hierarchies are real, can be logically determined, and are the appropriate basis for knowledge systems. Description logics and semantic language standards reflect this perspective, importantly through their open-world logic and vocabularies for generalized subsumption hierarchies. Recent research suggests possible mechanisms for the emergence of natural hierarchies.

Series

Reviews of concepts in knowledge organization

0.0014873719 = product of:
  0.008924231 = sum of:
    0.008924231 = weight(_text_:in in 361) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008924231 = score(doc=361,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.15028831 = fieldWeight in 361, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=361)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Das Periodensystem der Elemente steht seit über 100 Jahren für eine verlässliche Ordnung in der verwirrenden Vielfalt der chemischen Substanzen. Doch angesichts neuer Entdeckungen muss man sich fragen: Gibt es vielleicht etwas Besseres?

8.9242304E-4 = product of:
  0.005354538 = sum of:
    0.005354538 = weight(_text_:in in 894) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005354538 = score(doc=894,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.059380736 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.043654136 = queryNorm
        0.09017298 = fieldWeight in 894, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.3602545 = idf(docFreq=30841, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=894)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Several authors emphasize the need for a change in classification theory due to the influence of a dogmatic and monistic ontology supported by an outdated essentialism. These claims tend to focus on the fallibility of knowledge, the need for a pluralistic view, and the theoretical burden of observations. Regardless of the legitimacy of these concerns, there is the risk, when not moderate, to fall into the opposite relativistic extreme. Based on a narrative review of the literature, we aim to reflectively discuss the theoretical foundations that can serve as a basis for a realist position supporting pluralistic ontological classifications. The goal is to show that, against rather conventional solutions, objective scientific-based approaches to natural classifications are presented to be viable, allowing a proper distinction between ontological and taxonomic questions. Supported by critical scientific realism, we consider that such an approach is suitable for the development of ontological Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS). We believe that ontological perspectivism can provide the necessary adaptation to the different granularities of reality.