Search (75 results, page 1 of 4)

  • × author_ss:"Smiraglia, R.P."
  1. Scharnhorst, A.; Smiraglia, R.P.; Guéret, C.; Salah, A.A.A.: Knowledge maps for libraries and archives : uses and use cases (2015) 0.03 
    0.032020982 = product of:
  0.07204721 = sum of:
    0.020311646 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020311646 = score(doc=2304,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.18905719 = fieldWeight in 2304, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2304)
    0.029435357 = weight(_text_:use in 2304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029435357 = score(doc=2304,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.27065295 = fieldWeight in 2304, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2304)
    0.015825847 = weight(_text_:of in 2304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015825847 = score(doc=2304,freq=34.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.28494355 = fieldWeight in 2304, product of:
          5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
            34.0 = termFreq=34.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2304)
    0.006474362 = product of:
      0.019423086 = sum of:
        0.019423086 = weight(_text_:29 in 2304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019423086 = score(doc=2304,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12493842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 2304, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2304)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.44444445 = coord(4/9)
    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.
    Content
    Präsentation unter: http://de.slideshare.net/AndreaScharnhorst/knowledge-maps-for-libraries-and-archives-uses-and-use-cases.
    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
  2. Smiraglia, R.P.: Facets as discourse in knowledge organization : a case study in LISTA (2017) 0.02 
    0.020423228 = product of:
  0.061269682 = sum of:
    0.01795313 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01795313 = score(doc=3855,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 3855, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3855)
    0.026017427 = weight(_text_:use in 3855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026017427 = score(doc=3855,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.23922569 = fieldWeight in 3855, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3855)
    0.017299127 = weight(_text_:of in 3855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017299127 = score(doc=3855,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 3855, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3855)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    Knowledge Organization Systems (KOSs) use arrays of related concepts to capture the ontological content of a domain; hierarchical structures are typical of such systems. Some KOSs also employ sets of crossconceptual descriptors that express different dimensions within a domain-facets. The recent increase in the prominence of facets and faceted systems has had major impact on the intension of the KO domain and this is visible in the domain's literature. An interesting question is how the discourse surrounding facets in KO and in related domains such as information science might be described. The present paper reports one case study in an ongoing research project to investigate the discourse of facets in KO. In this particular case, the formal current research literature represented by inclusion in the "Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts, Full Text" (LISTA) database is analyzed to discover aspects of the research front and its ongoing discourse concerning facets. A datasets of 1682 citations was analyzed. Results show thinking concerning information retrieval and the semantic web resides alongside implementation of faceted searching and the growth of faceted thesauri. Faceted classification remains important to the discourse, but the use of facet analysis is linked directly to applied aspects of information science.
  3. Smiraglia, R.P.: Content metadata : an analysis of Etruscan artifacts in a museum of archeology (2005) 0.02 
    0.020041192 = product of:
  0.060123574 = sum of:
    0.030467471 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030467471 = score(doc=176,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 176, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=176)
    0.019944556 = weight(_text_:of in 176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019944556 = score(doc=176,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 176, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=176)
    0.009711544 = product of:
      0.029134631 = sum of:
        0.029134631 = weight(_text_:29 in 176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029134631 = score(doc=176,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12493842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 176, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=176)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    Metadata schemes target resources as information-packages, without attention to the distinction between content and carrier. Most schema are derived without empirical understanding of the concepts that need to be represented, the ways in which terms representing the central concepts might best be derived, and how metadata descriptions will be used for retrieval. Research is required to resolve this dilemma, and much research will be required if the plethora of schemes that already exist are to be made efficacious for resource description and retrieval. Here I report the results of a preliminary study, which was designed to see whether the bibliographic concept of "the work" could be of any relevance among artifacts held by a museum. I extend the "works metaphor" from the bibliographic to the artifactual domain, by altering the terms of the definition slightly, thus: 1) instantiation is understood as content genealogy. Case studies of Etruscan artifacts from the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology are used to demonstrate the inherence of the work in non-documentary artifacts.
    Date
    29. 9.2008 19:14:41
  4. Smiraglia, R.P.: ¬The "works" phenomenon and best selling books (2007) 0.02 
    0.018100794 = product of:
  0.05430238 = sum of:
    0.01795313 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01795313 = score(doc=260,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 260, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=260)
    0.018397098 = weight(_text_:use in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018397098 = score(doc=260,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 260, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=260)
    0.017952153 = weight(_text_:of in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017952153 = score(doc=260,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.32322758 = fieldWeight in 260, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=260)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    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.
    Footnote
    Simultaneously published as Cataloger, Editor, and Scholar: Essays in Honor of Ruth C. Carter
  5. Smiraglia, R.P.; Lee, H.-L.: Rethinking the authorship principle (2012) 0.02 
    0.01648737 = product of:
  0.049462106 = sum of:
    0.021543756 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021543756 = score(doc=5575,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 5575, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5575)
    0.018206805 = weight(_text_:of in 5575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018206805 = score(doc=5575,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 5575, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5575)
    0.009711544 = product of:
      0.029134631 = sum of:
        0.029134631 = weight(_text_:29 in 5575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029134631 = score(doc=5575,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12493842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 5575, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5575)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    The fundamental principle of order in the library catalogue is the authorship principle, which serves as the organizing node of an alphabetico-classed system, in which "texts" of "works" are organized first alphabetically by uniform title of the progenitor work and then are subarranged using titles for variant instantiations, under the heading for an "author." We analyze case studies of entries from (1) the first documented imperial library catalogue, the Seven Epitomes (Qilue [??]), in China; (2) Abelard's Works, which featured prominently in the 1848 testimony of Antonio Panizzi; and (3) The French Chef and the large family of instantiated works associated with it. Our analysis shows that the catalogue typically contains many large superwork sets. A more pragmatic approach to the design of catalogues is to array descriptions of resources in relation to the superwork sets to which they might belong. In all cases, a multidimensional faceted arrangement incorporating ideational nodes from the universe of recorded knowledge holds promise for greatly enhanced retrieval capability.
    Date
    10.12.2019 19:29:36
  6. Smiraglia, R.P.: Curating and virtual shelves : an editorial (2006) 0.02 
    0.01573708 = product of:
  0.047211237 = sum of:
    0.015547867 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015547867 = score(doc=409,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.14471677 = fieldWeight in 409, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=409)
    0.015932357 = weight(_text_:use in 409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015932357 = score(doc=409,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.14649522 = fieldWeight in 409, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=409)
    0.015731016 = weight(_text_:of in 409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015731016 = score(doc=409,freq=86.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.28323612 = fieldWeight in 409, product of:
          9.273619 = tf(freq=86.0), with freq of:
            86.0 = termFreq=86.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=409)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Content
    "Actions have consequences, and this is certainly true of knowledge organization. One reason our colleague Birger Hjoerland (1998) urges epistemological analysis for the problems of information science is that resources might well serve many different purposes for different users, and thus different user groups might have different epistemological relationships with resources. There is a difference between consulting a dictionary for a definition, reading a text for comprehension to increase your knowledge base, reading for pleasure (which, evidently boosts certain endorphins), and synthesizing a scientific report to generate an hypothesis, just to generate a few scenarios. The only commonality in that list is the consultation of a resource. In each case the purpose dictates the activity and is reliant upon a different epistemological aim. No online source of facts is going to suffice if I want something to read that will give me pleasure; no catalog of fine literature is sufficient for the extraction of scientific theory. Hjoerland also suggests that the names we give - to documents, to categories, even to activities - embodies the action of naming, and thereby also the action of facilitating or obfuscating the use of named resources (Hjoerland 2003, 98). Terminology cannot be neutral because the very selection of terms as names either provides a pathway to understanding or a barrier to usage, depending on the epistemological perspective of the user group. I won't go looking for Miss Marple in your dictionary if you call it a dictionary, even though it might contain a perfectly fine list of motives for murder. Likewise, as an information scientist I am not likely to look for research anywhere except in a database that purports to contain peer-reviewed scientific literature. Names have power, and the action of naming is powerful too. We in knowledge organization need to be aware that no matter how elegant our science, the actions based on our research have consequences. A model generated empirically might make an excellent explanation of a specific reality, but if it migrates into the structure of a system for knowledge organization it has the power to help or hinder assignment to categories, not to mention retrieval from those categories.
    An important aspect of what we do is facilitating the curatorial aspect of information retrieval or librarianship. What I mean is that our job is not merely to "mark and park," as generations of catalogers famously have said of both resource description and classification, or even to generate parking spaces (to press my metaphor), but rather our job is to place each entity in the best category, each artifact in the best environment, each resource on the best "shelf" to enhance its usability should it actually be sought for retrieval. Hope Olson (2002) has also written about the limits we create when we exercise the power to name. We must be aware of the consequences of our science. In librarianship in the United States at the moment there is a fair amount of hand-wringing about the future, and this anxiety has been fed by the report of Karen Calhoun on the changing nature of the catalog. Calhoun (2006) suggests that the library community should abandon many of its expensive knowledge organization practices - such as the Library of Congress Subject Headings - in favor of integration of search engines into library catalogs. As logical as this seems on the face of it (and as much as we might often have wished LCSH would go away!), purveyors of such notions have either forgotten or rejected the notion of the library as a social instrument, and therefore the order of things in libraries as an extension of that social role. We must also view knowledge organization then as a cultural enterprise, a social act that has consequences. The ontologies we use to devise categorical schemes imply certain realities. If we say there is no music other than Western Art, why, then there must be no point in paying any attention to music of any other sort, right? And if we say that UFOs are a kind of controversial knowledge, we join the community of non-believers who insist that UFOs do not exist. Surely if we thought they were viable phenomena we would create a concrete class for them (see DDC 001.942). Voila, now we know, UFOs do not exist - the DDC says so. And if a gay adolescent searches for literature to help understand and finds that it all falls under "perversion" then we have oppressed yet another youth (see Campbell 2001). Our actions have social consequences.
    Librarianship incorporates the tools of knowledge organization as part of its role as cultural disseminator. Subject headings and classification were both intended by their 19`h century promulgators - perhaps most notably Dewey and Cutter - to facilitate learning by grouping materials of high quality together. We might call this enhanced serendipity if we think it happens by accident or act of fate, or we might call it curatorship if we realize the responsibility inherent in our social role. The cataloger's job always has been to place each work sensitively among other works related to it, and to make the relationships explicit to facilitate and even encourage selection (see Miksa 1983). Schallier (2004) reported on the use of classification in an online catalog to enhance just such a curatorial purpose. UDC classification codes were exploded into linguistic strings to allow users to search, not just for a given term, but for the terms that occur around it - that is, terms that are adjacent in the classification. These displays are used alongside LCSH to provide enhanced-serendipity for users. What caught my attention was the intention of the project (p. 271): UDC permits librarians to build virtual library shelves, where a document's subjects can be described in thematic categories rather than in detailed verbal terms. And: It is our experience that most end users are not familiar with large controlled vocabularies. UDC could be an answer to this, since its alphanumeric makeup could be used to build a tree structure of terms, which would guide end users in their searchers. There are other implications from this project, including background linkage from UDC codes that drive the "virtual shelves" to subject terms that drive the initial classification. Knowledge organization has consequences in both theory and application."
  7. Smiraglia, R.P.: Further reflections on the nature of a work : introduction (2002) 0.01 
    0.014827152 = product of:
  0.066722184 = sum of:
    0.05026876 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05026876 = score(doc=5623,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 5623, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5623)
    0.016453419 = weight(_text_:of in 5623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016453419 = score(doc=5623,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 5623, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5623)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    The purpose of this volume is to extend our understanding of the work entity and its role in information retrieval. Basic definitions are reviewed to provide a summary of current thought about works, their role in the catalog, and the potential for better accommodating them in future information retrieval environments. A discussion of entities for information retrieval and works as entities follows. Research in knowledge organization is summarized, indicating ways in which ontology, epistemology, and semiotics have lately been used as looking glasses through which to view the social informational roles of works.
    Content
    Beitrag eines Themenheftes "Works as entities for information retrieval"
  8. Smiraglia, R.P.: Works as signs, symbols,and canons : The epistemology of the work (2001) 0.01 
    0.014751136 = product of:
  0.06638011 = sum of:
    0.048173305 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048173305 = score(doc=1119,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.44838852 = fieldWeight in 1119, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1119)
    0.018206805 = weight(_text_:of in 1119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018206805 = score(doc=1119,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 1119, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1119)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    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.
  9. Graf, A.M.; Smiraglia, R.P.: Race & ethnicity in the Encyclopedia of Milwaukee : a case study in the use of domain analysis (2014) 0.01 
    0.0141100455 = product of:
  0.042330135 = sum of:
    0.018397098 = weight(_text_:use in 1412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018397098 = score(doc=1412,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.1691581 = fieldWeight in 1412, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1412)
    0.015912883 = weight(_text_:of in 1412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015912883 = score(doc=1412,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.28651062 = fieldWeight in 1412, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1412)
    0.008020152 = product of:
      0.024060456 = sum of:
        0.024060456 = weight(_text_:22 in 1412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024060456 = score(doc=1412,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1243752 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1412, 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=1412)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    Scholarly domains have been analyzed using various tools and techniques to reveal complex genealogies of scholarship, authorship, citation and ontology, resulting in not only deeper knowledge of each area studied, but in a better developed set of methodologies for domain exploration in general. While domain analysis itself is being used frequently in LIS, there remain many areas against which domain analytical tools have not yet been applied. This is the case with encyclopedic collections of knowledge, such as that which is being developed as the Encyclopedia of Milwaukee (EMKE) within the history department at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. This descriptive study will analyze resources categorized under race and ethnicity from a comprehensive bibliography on the history of metropolitan Milwaukee that was designed to serve those who would research and write entries for the EMKE. Bibliometric and analytic techniques are employed to explore the intension and extension of the domain as it is developing.
    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
  10. Smiraglia, R.P.: New promise for the universal control of recorded knowledge (1990) 0.01 
    0.013430599 = product of:
  0.060437694 = sum of:
    0.044153035 = weight(_text_:use in 3573) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044153035 = score(doc=3573,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.40597942 = fieldWeight in 3573, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3573)
    0.016284661 = weight(_text_:of in 3573) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016284661 = score(doc=3573,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 3573, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3573)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Footnote
    Simultaneously published as Describing Archival Materials: The Use of the MARC AMC Format
  11. Smiraglia, R.P.: Derivative bibliographic relationships : linkages in the bibliographic universe (1994) 0.01 
    0.012865125 = product of:
  0.057893064 = sum of:
    0.03590626 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3043) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03590626 = score(doc=3043,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 3043, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3043)
    0.021986805 = weight(_text_:of in 3043) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021986805 = score(doc=3043,freq=42.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.39587128 = fieldWeight in 3043, product of:
          6.4807405 = tf(freq=42.0), with freq of:
            42.0 = termFreq=42.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3043)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    A major problem for bibliographic retrieval is an absence of explicit linkages to guide users among manifestations of a work. The purpose of this research was to enhance the power of bibliographic retrieval systems by providing contextual information about the derivative bibliographic relationship. Descriptive survey method was employed. A sample of 411 works from the Georgetown University on-line catalog was drawn. 49.9% of works were derivative. Age of a progenitor work is the characteristic most strongly associated with derivation; language and country of origin are indifferent predictors. Popularity of works might contribute to the phenomenon of derivation. The mean size of bibliographic families of derivative works was 8.44 members. The majority of bibliographic families had successive derivations, large groups of bibliographic families had translations and simultaneous editions; few had extractions, amplifications, or performances; none had adaptations. Successive derivations are the most commonly found members of bibliographic families, and are associated with most other types of derivation within bibliographic families. The bibliographic data required for explicit control of works might easily be compiled from existing records. The development of bibliographic retrieval systems in the network environment could play a dramatic role in improving retrieval of works
    Source
    Navigating the networks: Proceedings of the 1994 Mid-year Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, Portland, Oregon, May 21-25, 1994. Ed.: D.L. Andersen et al
  12. Smiraglia, R.P.: Knowledge sharing and content genealogy : extensing the "works" model as a metaphor for non-documentary artefacts with case studies of Etruscan artefacts (2004) 0.01 
    0.01280877 = product of:
  0.03842631 = sum of:
    0.014362504 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014362504 = score(doc=2671,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 2671, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2671)
    0.017589444 = weight(_text_:of in 2671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017589444 = score(doc=2671,freq=42.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.31669703 = fieldWeight in 2671, product of:
          6.4807405 = tf(freq=42.0), with freq of:
            42.0 = termFreq=42.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2671)
    0.006474362 = product of:
      0.019423086 = sum of:
        0.019423086 = weight(_text_:29 in 2671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.019423086 = score(doc=2671,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12493842 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 2671, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2671)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Abstract
    The harmonization and extension of a taxonomy of works from the documentary to the artefactual domain represents an attempt to further knowledge sharing across cultural boundaries. The uses and users of works, both documentary and artefactual, are global-the need for this advance in the organization of knowledge is therefore also global. Works are the formal records of knowledge, the essential records of human accomplishment. Works are a global phenomenon despite potential cultural variations in their creation and instantiation, and the need to organize works for retrieval is likewise a global phenomenon. Artefacts (sculptures, paintings, realia, documents, books, scores, recordings, etc.) are the physical media collected by repositories of culture (libraries, archives, museums, etc.), and are the means by which works are communicated. Works mutate and derive across time and culture in response to their entrance into a canon of cultural meaning. In the present paper, we review the characteristics of documentary works. Then we extend the metaphor from the documentary environment to the artefactual environment. To carry the metaphor from the documentary domain to the artefactual domain we alter the terms of the definition slightly, thus: 1) instantiation is understood as content genealogy. an epistemological architecture of content-genealogy is presented, demonstrating the potential for mutation and derivation of the representations of artefacts. Case studies of Etruscan artefacts from the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology are used to demonstrate the inherence of the work in nondocumentary artefacts. An outline of a meta-theory of "works" is presented that harmonizes the documentary and artefactual domains.
    Date
    29. 8.2004 19:05:56
    Source
    Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine
  13. Smiraglia, R.P.: Shelflisting music : guidelines for use with the Library of Congress Classification: M (2008) 0.01 
    0.012370673 = product of:
  0.05566803 = sum of:
    0.044153035 = weight(_text_:use in 4238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044153035 = score(doc=4238,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.40597942 = fieldWeight in 4238, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4238)
    0.011514995 = weight(_text_:of in 4238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011514995 = score(doc=4238,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 4238, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4238)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
  14. Smiraglia, R.P.: Authority control of works: cataloging's chimera? (2004) 0.01 
    0.010528081 = product of:
  0.047376364 = sum of:
    0.025389558 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025389558 = score(doc=5678,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 5678, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5678)
    0.021986805 = weight(_text_:of in 5678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021986805 = score(doc=5678,freq=42.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.39587128 = fieldWeight in 5678, product of:
          6.4807405 = tf(freq=42.0), with freq of:
            42.0 = termFreq=42.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5678)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Explicit authority control of works is essentially non-existent. Our catalogs are built on a principle of controlling headings, and primarily headings for names of authors. Our syndetic structure creates a spider's web of networked relationships among forms of headings, but it ends there, despite the potential richness of depth among bibliographic entities. Effective authority control of works could yield richness in the catalog that would enhance retrieval capabilities. Works are considered to constitute the intellectual content of informative artifacts that may be collected and ordered for retrieval. In a 1992 study the author examined a random sample of works drawn from the catalog of the Georgetown University Library. For each progenitor work, an instantiation network (also referred to as a bibliographic family) was constituted. A detailed analysis of the linkages that would be required for authority control of these networks is reviewed here. A new study is also presented, in which Library of Congress authority records for the works in this sample are sought and analyzed. Results demonstrate a near total lack of control, with only 5.6% of works for which authority records were found. From a sample of 410 works, of which nearly half have instantiation networks, only 23 works could be said to have implicit authority control. However, many instantiation networks are made up of successive derivations that can be implicitly linked through collocation. The difficult work of explicitly linking instantiations comes with title changes, translations, and containing relations. The empirical evidence in the present study suggests that explicit control of expressions will provide the best control over instantiation networks because it is instantiations such as translations, abridgments, and adaptations that require explicit linking.
  15. Smiraglia, R.P.: Describing music materials : a manual for descriptive cataloguing of printed and recorded music, music videos, and archival music collections; for use with AACR2 and APPM (1997) 0.01 
    0.010308895 = product of:
  0.046390027 = sum of:
    0.036794197 = weight(_text_:use in 3345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036794197 = score(doc=3345,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.3383162 = fieldWeight in 3345, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3345)
    0.00959583 = weight(_text_:of in 3345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00959583 = score(doc=3345,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.17277241 = fieldWeight in 3345, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3345)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
  16. Smiraglia, R.P.: Work (2019) 0.01 
    0.009631491 = product of:
  0.04334171 = sum of:
    0.025389558 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025389558 = score(doc=5312,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 5312, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5312)
    0.017952153 = weight(_text_:of in 5312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017952153 = score(doc=5312,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.32322758 = fieldWeight in 5312, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5312)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    A work is a deliberately created informing entity intended for communication. A work consists of abstract intellectual content that is distinct from any object that is its carrier. In library and information science, the importance of the work lies squarely with the problem of information retrieval. Works are mentefacts-intellectual (or mental) constructs that serve as artifacts of the cultures in which they arise. The meaning of a work is abstract at every level, from its creator's conception of it, to its reception and inherence by its consumers. Works are a kind of informing object and are subject to the phenomenon of instantiation, or realization over time. Research has indicated a base typology of instantiation. The problem for information retrieval is to simultaneously collocate and disambiguate large sets of instantiations. Cataloging and bibliographc tradition stipulate an alphabetico-classed arrangement of works based on an authorship principle. FRBR provided an entity-relationship schema for enhanced control of works in future catalogs, which has been incorporated into RDA. FRBRoo provides an empirically more precise model of work entities as informing objects and a schema for their representation in knowledge organization systems.
    Series
    Reviews of concepts in knowledge organization
  17. Smiraglia, R.P.: "Bridget's Revelationes, Ockham's Tractatus, and Doctrines and Covenanants" : qualitative analysis and epistemological perspectives on theological works (2002) 0.01 
    0.0095346905 = product of:
  0.042906106 = sum of:
    0.02513438 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02513438 = score(doc=5627,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 5627, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5627)
    0.017771725 = weight(_text_:of in 5627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017771725 = score(doc=5627,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 5627, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5627)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    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.
    Content
    Beitrag eines Themenheftes "Works as entities for information retrieval"
  18. Heuvel, C. van den; Smiraglia, R.P.: Concepts as particles : metaphors for the universe of knowledge (2010) 0.01 
    0.009338017 = product of:
  0.042021073 = sum of:
    0.022076517 = weight(_text_:use in 3513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022076517 = score(doc=3513,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10875683 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.20298971 = fieldWeight in 3513, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3513)
    0.019944556 = weight(_text_:of in 3513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019944556 = score(doc=3513,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.3591007 = fieldWeight in 3513, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3513)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    Discoveries in high energy physics have led to new understanding about the nature of that which exists. We use the metaphor of the particle collider to accumulate components of a theory of knowledge that underlies the science of knowledge organization. We outline the concepts of a knowledge universe, the central role of concepts, and the intertwining roles of works, instantiations and documents. This thought experiment provides a different epistemological reading of "knowledge" by demonstrating a semantics that is based on structure and on related forces between components, rather than on content, so as to enable the development of mechanisms for linking related knowledge entities with so-far undiscovered similarities.
    Source
    Paradigms and conceptual systems in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Eleventh International ISKO Conference, 23-26 February 2010 Rome, Italy. Edited by Claudio Gnoli and Fulvio Mazzocchi
  19. Smiraglia, R.P.: On sameness and difference : an editorial (2008) 0.01 
    0.0091267945 = product of:
  0.027380383 = sum of:
    0.008976565 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008976565 = score(doc=1919,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.08355226 = fieldWeight in 1919, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1919)
    0.014393743 = weight(_text_:of in 1919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014393743 = score(doc=1919,freq=72.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 1919, product of:
          8.485281 = tf(freq=72.0), with freq of:
            72.0 = termFreq=72.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1919)
    0.004010076 = product of:
      0.012030228 = sum of:
        0.012030228 = weight(_text_:22 in 1919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012030228 = score(doc=1919,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1243752 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.035517205 = queryNorm
            0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 1919, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1919)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(3/9)
    Content
    "1. What is? Many of us equate the principle activity of knowledge organization with that of ontology, which at its essence is the revelation of the structure of a domain. Among the essential choices that must be made in the construction of ontology are those involving "IsA" relationships. "What is a" is the primary question that defines what belongs inside a set and what, therefore, does not. Employing Dahlberg's concept-theoretic is one approach to defining the elements that belong in a set, although there are many other approaches as well. Whatever method is used, once a set is constituted its members will be considered to be like each other in some way, in other words, they are thought to be the same in some manner, or to some degree. Which leads naturally to the question of how alike must two entities be to be declared the same? Or its correlate, how dissimilar must they be to be declared different? Pondering this question led me to think about musical works that are of the genre "variations on a theme by X." In such works a composer uses a musical mnemonic-a melody usually-to draw listeners into the aural experience, and then, subsequent iterations all contain this original mnemonic but surround it or manipulate it in various ways. The result is always iterative but never boring because each iteration is subtly (or not so subtly) different from the last. And the technique allows the character of the original to be explored fully as well as for it to be reinterpreted by the current composer. In the end it is not so unlike, although a lot more interesting than, multiple citations by an author of another's works- say, like the way each time I cite Patrick Wilson it comes out a little differently. Same but different. Sameness and difference turn out to be essential philosophical positions. Many of the philosophical points of view brought to bear on knowledge organization suggest one or more points of view about this essential question. Semiotics (for example) suggests that signs are always being interpreted anew, phenomenology suggests entities might appear differently as a matter of their individual perception. All points of view are useful because they all shed light on formerly dark corners of the essential questions in knowledge organization.
    2. Collocation versus disambiguation Of course, the practical reality is that systems must accommodate dual purposes when they declare entities to be the same or different. We wish at once to collocate or draw together everything that is alike, and at the same time to disambiguate the collocated set. So, the tension between the two purposes holds every system in balance. A set of collocated entities is thought to contain entities that are the same to some degree, but different enough to require an approach to sorting the elements of the set. It reminds me again of Wilson, who said of relevance that sometimes people just want something that serves as a means to some end. What does that suggest about sameness and difference? Perhaps that "more or less the same" or "a little bit different" reveals a sort of fuzzy-set, which opens the brackets around the set of equivalent entities that have been collocated. If so, then it means all the more that the differences, no matter how slight, need to be accounted for in the disambiguation. Of course there is quite a lot of overlap among domains, especially among closely related domains. We can see that in the articles in the present issue of this journal. We have papers that have come from at least three domains, and yet they all treat of knowledge and its conceptual ordering. Yet there is little conformity among the works cited by these four papers. What does that tell us? Perhaps that different domains are a little bit the same?
    3. A New Perspective: Theme and Variations In musicology there is a factual reality that every sound you hear can be reduced to a sort of calculus that expresses its tonal and metrical relationships. Schenkerian analysis (Forte and Gilbert 1982) is one approach to this. In the end it reveals a singular truth, which is that music (like information) is essentially an ordered accretion of energy. The beauty of this type of analysis is what it reveals when large quantities of music are analyzed-it reveals sets of similarities that might never have been noticed otherwise. The music information retrieval domain has built its technology and its science along these lines. So where does this leave knowledge organization? In the semantic Web and the magical kingdoms that will follow it, it will be necessary to make samenessdifference decisions of a different sort, to provide the ability to make heretofore unimaginable connections. Elsewhere I have asked when a funeral urn is like a ship's log: the answer is when the instantiation set has the same calculus in its scope, which tells us that the two artifacts have approximately equal impact factors along some cultural or social trajectory. These are the sorts of questions knowledge organization can be able to answer if we can move toward a large base of empirical evidence to which similarity measures can be applied and from which new hypotheses can be drawn to direct investigation. Why have these questions not yet been answered? Because they have not yet been posed."
    Date
    12. 6.2008 20:18:22
  20. Smiraglia, R.P.: ¬The history of "The Work" in the modern catalog (2003) 0.01 
    0.009013754 = product of:
  0.040561896 = sum of:
    0.025389558 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025389558 = score(doc=5631,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10743652 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 5631, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5631)
    0.015172338 = weight(_text_:of in 5631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015172338 = score(doc=5631,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.05554029 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.035517205 = queryNorm
        0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 5631, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5631)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)
    Abstract
    From a historical perspective, one could consider the modern library catalog to be that bibliographical apparatus that stretches at least from Thomas Hyde's catalog for the Bodleian Library at Oxford to the near present. Mai and other recent authors have suggested postmodern approaches to knowledge organization. In these, we realize that there is no single and unique order of knowledge or documents but rather there are many appropriate orders, all of them contextually dependent. Works (oeuvres, opera, Werke, etc.), as are musical works, literary works, works of art, etc., are and always have been key entities for information retrieval. Yet catalogs in the modern era were designed to inventory (first) and retrieve (second) specific documents. From Hyde's catalog for the Bodleian until the late twentieth century, developments are epistemologically pragmatic--reflected in the structure of catalog records, in the rules for main entry headings, and in the rules for filing in card catalogs. After 1980 developments become empirical-reflected in research conducted by Tillett, Yee, Smiraglia, Leazer, Carlyle, and Vellucci. The influence of empiricism on the pragmatic notion of "the work" has led to increased focus on the concept of the work. The challenge for the postmodern online catalog is to fully embrace the concept of "the work," finally to facilitate it as a prime objective for information retrieval.
    Footnote
    Beitrag eines Themenheftes: Historical aspects of cataloging and classification; Part II

Authors

Years

Types

  • a 71
  • m 4
  • el 2
  • More… Less…

Themes