Search (75 results, page 1 of 4)

0.056281976 = product of:
  0.15008527 = sum of:
    0.04174695 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3043) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04174695 = score(doc=3043,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = 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)
    0.025563288 = weight(_text_:of in 3043) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025563288 = score(doc=3043,freq=42.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = 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)
    0.082775034 = sum of:
      0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 3043) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0110352645 = score(doc=3043,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041294612 = queryNorm
          0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 3043, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3043)
      0.07173977 = weight(_text_:line in 3043) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07173977 = score(doc=3043,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23157367 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041294612 = queryNorm
          0.30979243 = fieldWeight in 3043, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3043)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

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

0.047417045 = product of:
  0.12644546 = sum of:
    0.021604925 = weight(_text_:of in 636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021604925 = score(doc=636,freq=30.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.33457235 = fieldWeight in 636, product of:
          5.477226 = tf(freq=30.0), with freq of:
            30.0 = termFreq=30.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=636)
    0.09085341 = sum of:
      0.01911364 = weight(_text_:on in 636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01911364 = score(doc=636,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041294612 = queryNorm
          0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 636, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=636)
      0.07173977 = weight(_text_:line in 636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07173977 = score(doc=636,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.23157367 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041294612 = queryNorm
          0.30979243 = fieldWeight in 636, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.6078424 = idf(docFreq=440, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=636)
    0.013987125 = product of:
      0.02797425 = sum of:
        0.02797425 = weight(_text_:22 in 636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02797425 = score(doc=636,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 636, 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=636)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

The 2012 biennial international research conference of the International Society for Knowledge Organization was held August 6-9, in Mysore, India. It was the second international ISKO conference to be held in India (Canada and India are the only countries to have hosted two international ISKO conferences), and for many attendees travel to the exotic Indian subcontinent was a new experience. Interestingly, the mix of people attending was quite different from recent meetings held in Europe or North America. The conference was lively and, as usual, jam-packed with new research. Registration took place on a veranda in the garden of the B. N. Bahadur Institute of Management Sciences where the meetings were held at the University of Mysore. This graceful tree (Figure 1) kept us company and kept watch over our considerations (as indeed it does over the academic enterprise of the Institute). The conference theme was "Categories, Contexts and Relations in Knowledge Organization." The opening and closing sessions fittingly were devoted to serious introspection about the direction of the domain of knowledge organization. This editorial, in line with those following past international conferences, is an attempt to comment on the state of the domain by reflecting domain-analytically on the proceedings of the conference, primarily using bibliometric measures. In general, it seems the domain is secure in its intellectual moorings, as it continues to welcome a broad granular array of shifting research questionsin its intension. It seems that the continual concretizing of the theoretical core of knowledge organization (KO) seems to act as a catalyst for emergent ideas, which can be observed as part of the evolving intension of the domain.

Date

22. 2.2013 11:43:34

0.041240875 = product of:
  0.08248175 = sum of:
    0.023615643 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023615643 = score(doc=2304,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = 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)
    0.03422346 = weight(_text_:use in 2304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03422346 = score(doc=2304,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = 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)
    0.018400159 = weight(_text_:of in 2304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018400159 = score(doc=2304,freq=34.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = 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)
    0.0062424885 = product of:
      0.012484977 = sum of:
        0.012484977 = weight(_text_:on in 2304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012484977 = score(doc=2304,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.13746344 = fieldWeight in 2304, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2304)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

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

0.039519615 = product of:
  0.07903923 = sum of:
    0.020873476 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020873476 = score(doc=3855,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = 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)
    0.030249555 = weight(_text_:use in 3855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030249555 = score(doc=3855,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = 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)
    0.02011309 = weight(_text_:of in 3855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02011309 = score(doc=3855,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = 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)
    0.007803111 = product of:
      0.015606222 = sum of:
        0.015606222 = weight(_text_:on in 3855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015606222 = score(doc=3855,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 3855, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3855)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

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.

Content

Beitrag bei: NASKO 2017: Visualizing Knowledge Organization: Bringing Focus to Abstract Realities. The sixth North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization (NASKO 2017), June 15-16, 2017, in Champaign, IL, USA.

0.035469297 = product of:
  0.070938595 = sum of:
    0.020873476 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020873476 = score(doc=260,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = 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)
    0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021389665 = score(doc=260,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = 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)
    0.02087234 = weight(_text_:of in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02087234 = score(doc=260,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = 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)
    0.007803111 = product of:
      0.015606222 = sum of:
        0.015606222 = weight(_text_:on in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015606222 = score(doc=260,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 260, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=260)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

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

0.03198759 = product of:
  0.08530024 = sum of:
    0.058445733 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058445733 = score(doc=5623,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = 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)
    0.019129815 = weight(_text_:of in 5623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019129815 = score(doc=5623,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = 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)
    0.007724685 = product of:
      0.01544937 = sum of:
        0.01544937 = weight(_text_:on in 5623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01544937 = score(doc=5623,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 5623, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5623)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

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"

0.030824274 = product of:
  0.061648548 = sum of:
    0.018076962 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018076962 = score(doc=409,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = 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)
    0.018523993 = weight(_text_:use in 409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018523993 = score(doc=409,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = 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)
    0.018289901 = weight(_text_:of in 409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018289901 = score(doc=409,freq=86.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = 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)
    0.0067576915 = product of:
      0.013515383 = sum of:
        0.013515383 = weight(_text_:on in 409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013515383 = score(doc=409,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.14880852 = fieldWeight in 409, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=409)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

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."

0.029697886 = product of:
  0.05939577 = sum of:
    0.021389665 = weight(_text_:use in 1412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021389665 = score(doc=1412,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = 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)
    0.01850135 = weight(_text_:of in 1412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01850135 = score(doc=1412,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = 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)
    0.0055176322 = product of:
      0.0110352645 = sum of:
        0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 1412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0110352645 = score(doc=1412,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 1412, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1412)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.013987125 = product of:
      0.02797425 = sum of:
        0.02797425 = weight(_text_:22 in 1412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02797425 = score(doc=1412,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

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

0.022725178 = product of:
  0.060600474 = sum of:
    0.029519552 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029519552 = score(doc=5678,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = 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)
    0.025563288 = weight(_text_:of in 5678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025563288 = score(doc=5678,freq=42.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = 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)
    0.0055176322 = product of:
      0.0110352645 = sum of:
        0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 5678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0110352645 = score(doc=5678,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 5678, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5678)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

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.

0.022621732 = product of:
  0.060324617 = sum of:
    0.025667597 = weight(_text_:use in 3513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025667597 = score(doc=3513,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = 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)
    0.023188837 = weight(_text_:of in 3513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023188837 = score(doc=3513,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = 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)
    0.011468184 = product of:
      0.022936368 = sum of:
        0.022936368 = weight(_text_:on in 3513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022936368 = score(doc=3513,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.25253648 = fieldWeight in 3513, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3513)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

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

0.021603793 = product of:
  0.057610113 = sum of:
    0.029222867 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029222867 = score(doc=5627,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = 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)
    0.020662563 = weight(_text_:of in 5627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020662563 = score(doc=5627,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = 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)
    0.007724685 = product of:
      0.01544937 = sum of:
        0.01544937 = weight(_text_:on in 5627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01544937 = score(doc=5627,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 5627, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5627)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

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"

0.020966072 = product of:
  0.055909522 = sum of:
    0.029519552 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029519552 = score(doc=5312,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = 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)
    0.02087234 = weight(_text_:of in 5312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02087234 = score(doc=5312,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = 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)
    0.0055176322 = product of:
      0.0110352645 = sum of:
        0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 5312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0110352645 = score(doc=5312,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 5312, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5312)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

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

0.020840906 = product of:
  0.055575747 = sum of:
    0.020873476 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020873476 = score(doc=1758,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 1758, 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=1758)
    0.023667008 = weight(_text_:of in 1758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023667008 = score(doc=1758,freq=36.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.36650562 = fieldWeight in 1758, product of:
          6.0 = tf(freq=36.0), with freq of:
            36.0 = termFreq=36.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1758)
    0.0110352645 = product of:
      0.022070529 = sum of:
        0.022070529 = weight(_text_:on in 1758) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022070529 = score(doc=1758,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 1758, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1758)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper seeks to outline the central role of concepts in the knowledge universe, and the intertwining roles of works, instantiations, and documents. In particular the authors are interested in ontological and epistemological aspects of concepts and in the question to which extent there is a need for natural languages to link concepts to create meaningful patterns. Design/methodology/approach - The authors describe the quest for the smallest elements of knowledge from a historical perspective. They focus on the metaphor of the universe of knowledge and its impact on classification and retrieval of concepts. They outline the major components of an elementary theory of knowledge interaction. Findings - The paper outlines the major components of an elementary theory of knowledge interaction that is based on the structure of knowledge rather than on the content of documents, in which semantics becomes not a matter of synonymous concepts, but rather of coordinating knowledge structures. The evidence is derived from existing empirical research. Originality/value - The paper shifts the bases for knowledge organization from a search for a universal order to an understanding of a universal structure within which many context-dependent orders are possible.

Source

Journal of documentation. 69(2013) no.3, S.360-383

0.020611128 = product of:
  0.054963008 = sum of:
    0.029519552 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029519552 = score(doc=5631,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = 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)
    0.017640345 = weight(_text_:of in 5631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017640345 = score(doc=5631,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = 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)
    0.007803111 = product of:
      0.015606222 = sum of:
        0.015606222 = weight(_text_:on in 5631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015606222 = score(doc=5631,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 5631, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5631)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

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

0.020611128 = product of:
  0.054963008 = sum of:
    0.029519552 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029519552 = score(doc=5652,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 5652, 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=5652)
    0.017640345 = weight(_text_:of in 5652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017640345 = score(doc=5652,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.27317715 = fieldWeight in 5652, 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=5652)
    0.007803111 = product of:
      0.015606222 = sum of:
        0.015606222 = weight(_text_:on in 5652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015606222 = score(doc=5652,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 5652, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5652)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

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.

Source

Historical aspects of cataloging and classification. Ed.: M.D. Joachim

0.020281356 = product of:
  0.054083616 = sum of:
    0.020873476 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 811) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020873476 = score(doc=811,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 811, 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=811)
    0.02087234 = weight(_text_:of in 811) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02087234 = score(doc=811,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.32322758 = fieldWeight in 811, 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=811)
    0.012337802 = product of:
      0.024675604 = sum of:
        0.024675604 = weight(_text_:on in 811) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024675604 = score(doc=811,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.271686 = fieldWeight in 811, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=811)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

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.

0.019983616 = product of:
  0.05328964 = sum of:
    0.029945528 = weight(_text_:use in 3874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029945528 = score(doc=3874,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12644777 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.23682132 = fieldWeight in 3874, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0620887 = idf(docFreq=5623, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3874)
    0.015619429 = weight(_text_:of in 3874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015619429 = score(doc=3874,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 3874, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3874)
    0.007724685 = product of:
      0.01544937 = sum of:
        0.01544937 = weight(_text_:on in 3874) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01544937 = score(doc=3874,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 3874, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3874)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

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.

Content

Beitrag bei: NASKO 2017: Visualizing Knowledge Organization: Bringing Focus to Abstract Realities. The sixth North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization (NASKO 2017), June 15-16, 2017, in Champaign, IL, USA.

0.019841516 = product of:
  0.039683033 = sum of:
    0.010436738 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010436738 = score(doc=1919,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = 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)
    0.0167351 = weight(_text_:of in 1919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0167351 = score(doc=1919,freq=72.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = 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)
    0.0055176322 = product of:
      0.0110352645 = sum of:
        0.0110352645 = weight(_text_:on in 1919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0110352645 = score(doc=1919,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 1919, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1919)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0069935624 = product of:
      0.013987125 = sum of:
        0.013987125 = weight(_text_:22 in 1919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013987125 = score(doc=1919,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1446067 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

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

0.01929446 = product of:
  0.07717784 = sum of:
    0.05600942 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05600942 = score(doc=1119,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = 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)
    0.021168415 = weight(_text_:of in 1119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021168415 = score(doc=1119,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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.

0.018000232 = product of:
  0.04800062 = sum of:
    0.020873476 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020873476 = score(doc=2099,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.124912694 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 2099, 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=2099)
    0.019324033 = weight(_text_:of in 2099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019324033 = score(doc=2099,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.06457475 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041294612 = queryNorm
        0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 2099, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2099)
    0.007803111 = product of:
      0.015606222 = sum of:
        0.015606222 = weight(_text_:on in 2099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015606222 = score(doc=2099,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.090823986 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041294612 = queryNorm
            0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 2099, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2099)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

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.