Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.04734534 = product of:
  0.09469068 = sum of:
    0.03398632 = weight(_text_:information in 310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03398632 = score(doc=310,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.3840108 = fieldWeight in 310, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=310)
    0.060704365 = product of:
      0.12140873 = sum of:
        0.12140873 = weight(_text_:organization in 310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12140873 = score(doc=310,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.675432 = fieldWeight in 310, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=310)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Recently, a new book on knowledge organization has been published by Greenwood Press. The title is 'Information seeking and subject representation: an activity-theoretical approach to information science'. This book presents a new general theory for information science and knowledge organization, based on a theory of information seeking. The author is Dr. Birger Hjørland, Royal School of Library and Information Science. In 1994, he presented his work on theory for KO at the 3rd International ISKO conference in Copenhagen. The book aims to provide both a new understanding for the foundations of information science and knowledge organization, and to provide new directions in research and teaching within these fields. KO (Hanne Albrechtsen) has interviewed Birger HjÝrland in Copenhagen about his views on knowledge organization and subject representation

Source

Knowledge organization. 24(1997) no.3, S.136-144

Theme

Information

0.021399152 = product of:
  0.042798303 = sum of:
    0.01213797 = weight(_text_:information in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01213797 = score(doc=40,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
    0.030660335 = product of:
      0.06132067 = sum of:
        0.06132067 = weight(_text_:organization in 40) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06132067 = score(doc=40,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.34114468 = fieldWeight in 40, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=40)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In information science, classification systems are conventionally viewed as tools for representing knowledge in the universe of ideas, the human mind, or one or more sets of documents. In this view, developing and maintaining relationships and structures in classification schemes must primarily consider two abstract ingredients: i) a set of concepts for one or more domains; and ii) a (set of) unambiguous structure(s) to articulate the relationships that persist between the various concepts that comprise the classificatory structure. We contend that design decisions pertaining to the structure of a classification system consist of far more than simply creating links between the elements in a particular set of concepts. Ultimately, a simplistic tool view of classifications implies that the construction is little more than a technical task in a very narrow sense: that classificatory concepts are viewed as standard representations of what are assumed to be the central and/or important topics in the knowledge domain(s), and that there is i) an unambiguous Platonic ideal or universal consensus that determines how the links will be generated within a classificatory structure; or, conversely, ii) that there are no general structures and relationships available at all, but that only diverse individual knowledge structures exist, which cannot be reconciled into a general organization of knowledge

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.6

Source

Structures and relations in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the 5th International ISKO-Conference, Lille, 25.-29.8.1998. Ed.: W. Mustafa el Hadi et al

0.008850876 = product of:
  0.035403505 = sum of:
    0.035403505 = product of:
      0.07080701 = sum of:
        0.07080701 = weight(_text_:organization in 6391) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07080701 = score(doc=6391,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.39391994 = fieldWeight in 6391, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6391)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper takes a second look at three prevailing main themes in knowledge organization: i) the academic disciplines as the main structural principle; ii) the fiction/non-fiction distinction; and iii) the appropriate unit of analysis in online retrieval systems. The history and origin of bibliographic classification [Dewey, Bliss, Mills, Beghtol] are discussed from the perspective of pragmatist philosophy and social studies of science [Kuhn, Merton, Reich]. Choices of structural principles in different schemes are found to rely on more or less implicit philosophical foundations, ranging from rationalism to pragmatism. It is further shown how the increasing application of faceted structures as basic structural principles in universal classification schemes [DDC, UDC] impose rationalistic principles and structures for knowledge organization which are not in alignment with the development of knowledge in the covered disciplines. Further evidence of rationalism in knowledge organization is the fiction/non-fiction distinction, excluding the important role of artistic resources for, in particular, humanistic research. Finally, for the analysis of appropriate bibliographic unit, it is argued that there is a need to shift towards a semiotic approach, founded on an understanding of intertextuality, rather than applying standard principles of hierarchical decomposition of documents. It is concluded that a change in classification research is needed, founded on a more historical and social understanding of knowledge

Source

Knowledge organization. 26(1999) no.3, S.131-139

0.0072827823 = product of:
  0.02913113 = sum of:
    0.02913113 = weight(_text_:information in 8900) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02913113 = score(doc=8900,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.3291521 = fieldWeight in 8900, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=8900)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Imprint

Medford; NJ : Learned Information

Source

The economics of information. ASIS'94. Proc. 57th ASIS Annual Meeting, Alexandria, VA, Oct. 17-20, 1994. Ed.: B. Maxian

0.006068985 = product of:
  0.02427594 = sum of:
    0.02427594 = weight(_text_:information in 3182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02427594 = score(doc=3182,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.27429342 = fieldWeight in 3182, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3182)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Exploring the contexts of information behaviour: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Research in Information Needs, Seeking and Use in Different Contexts, Sheffield, UK, 1998. Ed. by D.K. Wilson u. D.K. Allen

0.005149705 = product of:
  0.02059882 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 6323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=6323,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 6323, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6323)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Discusses the nature of subject analysis, suggesting three different conceptions of this: simplistic, content-oriented, and requirement-oriented, considering the type of subject information and indexing method appropriate for each

0.0037164795 = product of:
  0.014865918 = sum of:
    0.014865918 = weight(_text_:information in 2273) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014865918 = score(doc=2273,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 2273, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2273)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article is a programmatic article, which formulates a new approach to information science (IS): domain analysis. This approach states that the most fruitful horizon for IS is to study the knowledge-domains as thought or discourse communities, which are parts of society's division of labor. The article is also a review article, providing a multidisciplinary description of research, illuminating this theoretical view. The first section presents contemporary research in IS, sharing the fundamental viewpoint that IS should be seen as a social rather than as a purely mental discipline. In addition, important predecessors to this view are mentioned and the possibilities as well as the limitations of their approaches are discussed. The second section describes recent transdisciplinary tendencies in the understanding of knowledge. In bordering disciplines to IS, such as educational research, psychology, linguistics, and the philosophy of science, an important new view of knowledge is appearing in the 1990s. This new view of knowledge stresses the social ecological, and content-oriented nature of knowledge. This is opposed to the more formal, computer-like approaches that dominated in the 1980s. The third section compares domain-analysis to other major approaches in IS, such as the cognitive approach. The final section outlines important problems to be investigates, such as how different knowledge-doamins affect the informational value of different subject access points in databases

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 46(1995) no.6, S.400-425

0.0030344925 = product of:
  0.01213797 = sum of:
    0.01213797 = weight(_text_:information in 859) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01213797 = score(doc=859,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 859, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=859)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

The notion of the classification scheme as a transitional element or "boundary object" (Star, 1989) offers an alternative to the more traditional approach that views classification as an organizational structure imposed upon a body of knowledge to facilitate access within a universal and frequently static framework. Recognition of the underlying relationship between user access and the collective knowledge structures that are the basis for knowledge production indicates the dynamic role of classification in supporting coherence and articulation across heterogeneous contexts. To this end, it is argued that the library should be an active participant in the production of knowledge, and that this role can be effected by the development of classificatory structures that can support the needs of a diverse information ecology consisting of a complex web of interacting agents, users, and technologies. Within such an information ecology, a classificatory structure cannot follow a one-size-fits-all paradigm but must evolve in cooperative interaction between librarians and their user groups.