Search (29 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × author_ss:"Beghtol, C."
  1. Beghtol, C.: Professional values and ethics in knowledge organization and cataloguing : observations on standards and implementation (1998) 0.15 
    0.1468962 = product of:
  0.1958616 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 3026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=3026,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 3026, 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=3026)
    0.13277857 = weight(_text_:standards in 3026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13277857 = score(doc=3026,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.59091425 = fieldWeight in 3026, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3026)
    0.042484205 = product of:
      0.08496841 = sum of:
        0.08496841 = weight(_text_:organization in 3026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08496841 = score(doc=3026,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.47270393 = fieldWeight in 3026, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3026)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Source
    Journal of information ethics. 17(2008) no.1, S.12-19
  2. Beghtol, C.: Toward a theory of fiction analysis for information storage and retrieval (1992) 0.06 
    0.06251157 = product of:
  0.12502314 = sum of:
    0.013732546 = weight(_text_:information in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013732546 = score(doc=5830,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 5830, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5830)
    0.11129059 = sum of:
      0.056645606 = weight(_text_:organization in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.056645606 = score(doc=5830,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.31513596 = fieldWeight in 5830, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5830)
      0.054644987 = weight(_text_:22 in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054644987 = score(doc=5830,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5830, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5830)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Date
    5. 8.2006 13:22:08
    Source
    Classification research for knowledge representation and organization. Proc. 5th Int. Study Conf. on Classification Research, Toronto, Canada, 24.-28.6.1991. Ed. by N.J. Williamson u. M. Hudon
  3. Beghtol, C.: Naïve classification systems and the global information society (2004) 0.06 
    0.056319736 = product of:
  0.11263947 = sum of:
    0.017165681 = weight(_text_:information in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017165681 = score(doc=3483,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 3483, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3483)
    0.09547379 = sum of:
      0.06132067 = weight(_text_:organization in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06132067 = score(doc=3483,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.34114468 = fieldWeight in 3483, 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=3483)
      0.03415312 = weight(_text_:22 in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03415312 = score(doc=3483,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3483, 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=3483)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Classification is an activity that transcends time and space and that bridges the divisions between different languages and cultures, including the divisions between academic disciplines. Classificatory activity, however, serves different purposes in different situations. Classifications for infonnation retrieval can be called "professional" classifications and classifications in other fields can be called "naïve" classifications because they are developed by people who have no particular interest in classificatory issues. The general purpose of naïve classification systems is to discover new knowledge. In contrast, the general purpose of information retrieval classifications is to classify pre-existing knowledge. Different classificatory purposes may thus inform systems that are intended to span the cultural specifics of the globalized information society. This paper builds an previous research into the purposes and characteristics of naïve classifications. It describes some of the relationships between the purpose and context of a naive classification, the units of analysis used in it, and the theory that the context and the units of analysis imply.
    Footnote
    Vgl.: Jacob, E.K.: Proposal for a classification of classifications built on Beghtol's distinction between "Naïve Classification" and "Professional Classification". In: Knowledge organization. 37(2010) no.2, S.111-120.
    Pages
    S.19-22
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol.9
    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
  4. Beghtol, C.: Response to Hjoerland and Nicolaisen (2004) 0.05 
    0.054004587 = product of:
  0.072006114 = sum of:
    0.00849658 = weight(_text_:information in 3536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00849658 = score(doc=3536,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.0960027 = fieldWeight in 3536, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3536)
    0.038727082 = weight(_text_:standards in 3536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038727082 = score(doc=3536,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.17234999 = fieldWeight in 3536, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3536)
    0.024782453 = product of:
      0.049564905 = sum of:
        0.049564905 = weight(_text_:organization in 3536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049564905 = score(doc=3536,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.27574396 = fieldWeight in 3536, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3536)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.75 = coord(3/4)
    Abstract
    I am writing to correct some of the misconceptions that Hjoerland and Nicolaisen appear to have about my paper in the previous issue of Knowledge Organization. I would like to address aspects of two of these misapprehensions. The first is the faulty interpretation they have given to my use of the term "naïve classification," and the second is the kinds of classification systems that they appear to believe are discussed in my paper as examples of "naïve classifications." First, the term "naïve classification" is directly analogous to the widely-understood and widelyaccepted term "naïve indexing." It is not analogous to the terms to which Hjorland and Nicolaisen compare it (i.e., "naïve physics", "naïve biology"). The term as I have defined it is not pejorative. It does not imply that the scholars who have developed naïve classifications have not given profoundly serious thought to their own scholarly work. My paper distinguishes between classifications for new knowledge developed by scholars in the various disciplines for the purposes of advancing disciplinary knowledge ("naïve classifications") and classifications for previously existing knowledge developed by information professionals for the purposes of creating access points in information retrieval systems ("professional classifications"). This distinction rests primarily an the purpose of the kind of classification system in question and only secondarily an the knowledge base of the scholars who have created it. Hjoerland and Nicolaisen appear to have misunderstood this point, which is made clearly and adequately in the title, in the abstract and throughout the text of my paper.
    Second, the paper posits that these different reasons for creating classification systems strongly influence the content and extent of the two kinds of classifications, but not necessarily their structures. By definition, naïve classifications for new knowledge have been developed for discrete areas of disciplinary inquiry in new areas of knowledge. These classifications do not attempt to classify the whole of that disciplinary area. That is, naïve classifications have a explicit purpose that is significantly different from the purpose of the major disciplinary classifications Hjoer-land and Nicolaisen provide as examples of classifications they think I discuss under the rubric of "naïve classifications" (e.g., classifications for the entire field of archaeology, biology, linguistics, music, psychology, etc.). My paper is not concerned with these important classifications for major disciplinary areas. Instead, it is concerned solely and specifically with scholarly classifications for small areas of new knowledge within these major disciplines (e.g., cloth of aresta, double harpsichords, child-rearing practices, anomalous phenomena, etc.). Thus, I have nowhere suggested or implied that the broad disciplinary classifications mentioned by Hjoerland and Nicolaisen are appropriately categorized as "naïve classifications." For example, I have not associated the Periodic System of the Elements with naïve classifications, as Hjoerland and Nicolaisen state that I have done. Indeed, broad classifications of this type fall well outside the definition of naïve classifications set out in my paper. In this case, too, 1 believe that Hjorland and Nicolaisen have misunderstood an important point in my paper. I agree with a number of points made in Hjorland and Nicolaisen's paper. In particular, I agree that researchers in the knowledge organization field should adhere to the highest standards of scholarly and scientific precision. For that reason, I am glad to have had the opportunity to respond to their paper.
    Footnote
    Bezugnahme auf: Hjoerland, B., J. Nicolaisen: Scientific and scholarly classifications are not "naïve": a comment to Beghtol (2003). In: Knowledge organization. 31(2004) no.1, S.55-61. - Vgl. die Erwiderung von Nicolaisen und Hjoerland in KO 31(2004) no.3, S.199-201.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 31(2004) no.1, S.62-63
  5. Beghtol, C.: ¬A proposed ethical warrant for global knowledge representation and organization systems (2002) 0.03 
    0.030161653 = product of:
  0.060323305 = sum of:
    0.017839102 = weight(_text_:information in 4462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017839102 = score(doc=4462,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.20156369 = fieldWeight in 4462, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4462)
    0.042484205 = product of:
      0.08496841 = sum of:
        0.08496841 = weight(_text_:organization in 4462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08496841 = score(doc=4462,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.47270393 = fieldWeight in 4462, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4462)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    New technologies have made the increased globalization of information resources and services possible. In this situation, it is ethically and intellectually beneficial to protect cultural and information diversity. This paper analyzes the problems of creating ethically based globally accessible and culturally acceptable knowledge representation and organization systems, and foundation principles for the ethical treatment of different cultures are established on the basis of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The concept of "cultural hospitality", which can act as a theoretical framework for the ethical warrant of knowledge representation and organization systems, is described. This broad discussion is grounded with an extended example of one cultural universal, the concept of time and its expression in calendars. Methods of achieving cultural and user hospitality in information systems are discussed for their potential for creating ethically based systems. It is concluded that cultural hospitality is a promising concept for assessing the ethical foundations of new knowledge representation and organization systems and for planning revisions to existing systems.
  6. Beghtol, C.: Ethical decision-making for knowledge representation and organization systems for global use (2005) 0.03 
    0.029958814 = product of:
  0.05991763 = sum of:
    0.01699316 = weight(_text_:information in 1648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01699316 = score(doc=1648,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 1648, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1648)
    0.04292447 = product of:
      0.08584894 = sum of:
        0.08584894 = weight(_text_:organization in 1648) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08584894 = score(doc=1648,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.47760257 = fieldWeight in 1648, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1648)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    In this article, ethical decision-making methods for creating, revising, and maintaining knowledge representation and organization systems are described, particularly in relation to the global use of these systems. The analysis uses a three-level model and the literature on ethically based decision-making in the social and technical sciences. In addition, methods for making these kinds of decisions in an ethical manner are presented. This multidisciplinary approach is generalizable to other information areas and is useful for encouraging the development of ethics policies for knowledge representation and organization systems and for other kinds of systems or institutions.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 56(2005) no.9, S.903-912
  7. Beghtol, C.: Universal concepts, cultural warrant and cultural hospitality (2003) 0.03 
    0.028899102 = product of:
  0.057798203 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 2681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=2681,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2681, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2681)
    0.047498792 = product of:
      0.094997585 = sum of:
        0.094997585 = weight(_text_:organization in 2681) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.094997585 = score(doc=2681,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.5284991 = fieldWeight in 2681, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2681)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The problem of how to provide access to information regardless of linguistic or other domain boundaries or cultural traditions can be approached by examining how cultural universals are implemented in specific cultures at specific times and places. The universal concept of "time" and its implementation in calendars is used as an illustration, and how time is treated in knowledge organization systems is briefly described. A broadened definition for the concept of "hospitality" is proposed for use in evaluating the efficacy of knowledge organization systems. The identification of the complementary concept of "cultural hospitality" provides a theoretical framework to inform decisions about the types of access that can (and/or should) be provided by knowledge organization systems that purport to be globally useful and ethically balanced.
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol.8
    Source
    Challenges in knowledge representation and organization for the 21st century: Integration of knowledge across boundaries. Proceedings of the 7th ISKO International Conference Granada, Spain, July 10-13, 2002. Ed.: M. López-Huertas
  8. Beghtol, C.: Knowledge representation and organization in the ITER project : A Web-based digital library for scholars of the middle ages and renaissance (http://iter.utoronto.ca) (2001) 0.03 
    0.028524885 = product of:
  0.05704977 = sum of:
    0.014565565 = weight(_text_:information in 638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014565565 = score(doc=638,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 638, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=638)
    0.042484205 = product of:
      0.08496841 = sum of:
        0.08496841 = weight(_text_:organization in 638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08496841 = score(doc=638,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.47270393 = fieldWeight in 638, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=638)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The Iter Project ("iter" means "path" or "journey" in Latin) is an internationally supported non-profit research project created with the objective of providing electronic access to all kinds and formats of materials that relate to the Middle Ages and Renaissance (400-1700) and that were published between 1700 and the present. Knowledge representation and organization decisions for the Project were influenced by its potential international clientele of scholarly users, and these decisions illustrate the importance and efficacy of collaboration between specialized users and information professionals. The paper outlines the scholarly principles and information goals of the Project and describes in detail the methodology developed to provide reliable and consistent knowledge representation and organization for one component of the Project, the Iter Bibliography. Examples of fully catalogued records for the Iter Bibliography are included.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 28(2001) no.4, S.170-179
  9. Beghtol, C.: Classification theory (2010) 0.03 
    0.028524885 = product of:
  0.05704977 = sum of:
    0.014565565 = weight(_text_:information in 3761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014565565 = score(doc=3761,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 3761, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3761)
    0.042484205 = product of:
      0.08496841 = sum of:
        0.08496841 = weight(_text_:organization in 3761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08496841 = score(doc=3761,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.47270393 = fieldWeight in 3761, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3761)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    In the library and information sciences, classification theories are used primarily for knowledge organization, either in a manual or in a machine environment. In this context, classification theories have usually been developed initially as a support for specific knowledge organization classification systems, although the theories and the systems have influenced and re-influenced each other in particular ways throughout their lives. This entry discusses theories for knowledge organization classifications using examples from a number of classification systems, but no one system is discussed at length. Instead, the entry is organized into sections that deal first with classificatory issues in general and then with theories of content, theories of structure, and theories of notation for knowledge organization classifications.
    Source
    Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates
  10. Beghtol, C.: Nancy J. Williamson and the International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO) (2010) 0.03 
    0.027470224 = product of:
  0.054940447 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 3566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=3566,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 3566, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3566)
    0.04292447 = product of:
      0.08584894 = sum of:
        0.08584894 = weight(_text_:organization in 3566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08584894 = score(doc=3566,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.47760257 = fieldWeight in 3566, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3566)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    This article documents and analyzes Nancy J. Williamson's contributions to two of the major publications of the International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), International Classification/ Knowledge Organization and Advances in Classification Research. The results show her serious and long-standing commitment to the field of representing and organizing information and knowledge and her dedication to expanding worldwide interest and involvement in these fields. The Appendix provides access to each of Williamson's contributions to the two ISKO publications.
  11. Beghtol, C.: 'Itself an education' classification systems, theory, and research in the information studies curriculum (1997) 0.02 
    0.024407204 = product of:
  0.04881441 = sum of:
    0.024031956 = weight(_text_:information in 666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024031956 = score(doc=666,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 666, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=666)
    0.024782453 = product of:
      0.049564905 = sum of:
        0.049564905 = weight(_text_:organization in 666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049564905 = score(doc=666,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.27574396 = fieldWeight in 666, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=666)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The interdisciplinary field of information studies requires an eclectic and imaginative curriculum. Future information professionals need intellectual tools that will enable them to adapt to changed social and technological environments. In this situation, the study of classification, including both principles application for current bibliographic systems and principles of construction that could be used to develop new systems for bibliographic and non bibliographic materials, is one way to equip students with the balanced flexibility to adapt to changing needs. Knowledge of the organization of knowledge is basic to any kind of information work
  12. Beghtol, C.: ¬The facet concept as a universal principle of subdivision (2006) 0.02 
    0.024407204 = product of:
  0.04881441 = sum of:
    0.024031956 = weight(_text_:information in 1483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024031956 = score(doc=1483,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 1483, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1483)
    0.024782453 = product of:
      0.049564905 = sum of:
        0.049564905 = weight(_text_:organization in 1483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049564905 = score(doc=1483,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.27574396 = fieldWeight in 1483, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1483)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Facet analysis has been one of the foremost contenders as a design principle for information retrieval classifications, both manual and electronic in the last fifty years. Evidence is presented that the facet concept has a claim to be considered as a method of subdivision that is cognitively available to human beings, regardless of language, culture, or academic discipline. The possibility that faceting is a universal method of subdivision enhances the claim that facet analysis as an unusually useful design principle for information retrieval classifications in any field. This possibility needs further investigation in an age when information access across boundaries is both necessary and possible.
    Source
    Knowledge organization, information systems and other essays: Professor A. Neelameghan Festschrift. Ed. by K.S. Raghavan and K.N. Prasad
  13. Beghtol, C.: Classification for information retrieval and classification for knowledge discovery : relationships between "professional" and "naïve" classifications (2003) 0.02 
    0.022112938 = product of:
  0.044225875 = sum of:
    0.019191816 = weight(_text_:information in 3021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019191816 = score(doc=3021,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 3021, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3021)
    0.025034059 = product of:
      0.050068118 = sum of:
        0.050068118 = weight(_text_:organization in 3021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050068118 = score(doc=3021,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.27854347 = fieldWeight in 3021, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3021)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Classification is a transdisciplinary activity that occurs during all human pursuits. Classificatory activity, however, serves different purposes in different situations. In information retrieval, the primary purpose of classification is to find knowledge that already exists, but one of the purposes of classification in other fields is to discover new knowledge. In this paper, classifications for information retrieval are called "professional" classifications because they are devised by people who have a professional interest in classification, and classifications for knowledge discovery are called "naive" classifications because they are devised by people who have no particular interest in studying classification as an end in itself. This paper compares the overall purposes and methods of these two kinds of classifications and provides a general model of the relationships between the two kinds of classificatory activity in the context of information studies. This model addresses issues of the influence of scholarly activity and communication an the creation and revision of classifications for the purposes of information retrieval and for the purposes of knowledge discovery. Further comparisons elucidate the relationships between the universality of classificatory methods and the specific purposes served by naive and professional classification systems.
    Footnote
    Vgl. Stellungnahme dazu in: Hjoerland, B., J. Nicolaisen: Scientific and scholarly classifications are not "naïve": a comment to Beghtol (2003). In: Knowledge organization. 31(2004) no.1, S.55-61.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 30(2003) no.2, S.64-73
  14. Beghtol, C.: Stories : applications of narrative discourse analysis to issues in information storage and retrieval (1997) 0.02 
    0.020887807 = product of:
  0.041775614 = sum of:
    0.01699316 = weight(_text_:information in 5844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01699316 = score(doc=5844,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 5844, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5844)
    0.024782453 = product of:
      0.049564905 = sum of:
        0.049564905 = weight(_text_:organization in 5844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049564905 = score(doc=5844,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.27574396 = fieldWeight in 5844, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5844)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    The arts, humanities, and social sciences commonly borrow concepts and methods from the sciences, but interdisciplinary borrowing seldom occurs in the opposite direction. Research on narrative discourse is relevant to problems of documentary storage and retrieval, for the arts and humanities in particular, but also for other broad areas of knowledge. This paper views the potential application of narrative discourse analysis to information storage and retrieval problems from 2 perspectives: 1) analysis and comparison of narrative documents in all disciplines may be simplified if fundamental categories that occur in narrative documents can be isolated; and 2) the possibility of subdividing the world of knowledge initially into narrative and non-narrative documents is explored with particular attention to Werlich's work on text types
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 24(1997) no.2, S.64-71
  15. Beghtol, C.: ¬The classification of fiction : the development of a system based on theoretical principles (1994) 0.02 
    0.018399216 = product of:
  0.036798432 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 3413) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=3413,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 3413, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3413)
    0.024782453 = product of:
      0.049564905 = sum of:
        0.049564905 = weight(_text_:organization in 3413) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049564905 = score(doc=3413,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.27574396 = fieldWeight in 3413, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3413)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Footnote
    Rez. in: Knowledge organization 21(1994) no.3, S.165-167 (W. Bies); JASIS 46(1995) no.5, S.389-390 (E.G. Bierbaum); Canadian journal of information and library science 20(1995) nos.3/4, S.52-53 (L. Rees-Potter)
  16. Beghtol, C.: Relationships in classificatory structure and meaning (2001) 0.02 
    0.017903835 = product of:
  0.03580767 = sum of:
    0.014565565 = weight(_text_:information in 1138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014565565 = score(doc=1138,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 1138, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1138)
    0.021242103 = product of:
      0.042484205 = sum of:
        0.042484205 = weight(_text_:organization in 1138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042484205 = score(doc=1138,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23635197 = fieldWeight in 1138, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1138)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    In a changing information environment, we need to reassess each element of bibliographic control, including classification theories and systems. Every classification system is a theoretical construct imposed an "reality." The classificatory relationships that are assumed to be valuable have generally received less attention than the topics included in the systems. Relationships are functions of both the syntactic and semantic axes of classification systems, and both explicit and implicit relationships are discussed. Examples are drawn from a number of different systems, both bibliographic and non-bibliographic, and the cultural warrant (i. e., the sociocultural context) of classification systems is examined. The part-whole relationship is discussed as an example of a universally valid concept that is treated as a component of the cultural warrant of a classification system.
    Series
    Information science and knowledge management; vol.2
    Source
    Relationships in the organization of knowledge. Eds.: Bean, C.A. u. R. Green
  17. Beghtol, C.: Knowledge domains : multidisciplinarity and bibliographic classification systems (1998) 0.02 
    0.015770756 = product of:
  0.03154151 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 2028) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=2028,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2028, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2028)
    0.021242103 = product of:
      0.042484205 = sum of:
        0.042484205 = weight(_text_:organization in 2028) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042484205 = score(doc=2028,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23635197 = fieldWeight in 2028, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2028)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Abstract
    Bibliographic classification systems purport to organize the world of knowledge for information storage and retrieval purposes in libraries and bibliographies, both manual and online. The major systems that have predominated during the 20th century were originally predicated on the academic disciplines. This structural principle is no longer adequate because multidisciplinray knowledge production has overtaken more traditional disciplinary perspectives and produced communities of cooperation whose documents cannot be accomodated in a disciplinary structure. This paper addresses the problems the major classifications face, reports some attempts to revise these systems to accomodate multidisciplinary works more appropriately, and describes some theoretical research perspectives that attempt to reorient classification research toward the pluralistic needs of multidisciplinary knowledge creation and the perspectives of different discourse communities. Traditionally, the primary desiderata of classification systems were mutual exclusivity and joint exhaustivity. The need to respond to multidisciplinary research may mean that hospitality will replace mutual exclusivity and joint exhaustivity as the most needed and useful characteristics of classification systems in both theory and practice
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 25(1998) nos.1/2, S.1-12
  18. Beghtol, C.: Exploring new approaches to the organization of knowledge : the subject classification of James Duff Brown (2004) 0.02 
    0.015770756 = product of:
  0.03154151 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=869,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 869, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=869)
    0.021242103 = product of:
      0.042484205 = sum of:
        0.042484205 = weight(_text_:organization in 869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042484205 = score(doc=869,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23635197 = fieldWeight in 869, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=869)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)
    Footnote
    Beitrag in einem Themenheft: Pioneers in library and information science
  19. Beghtol, C.: ¬The global learning society and the iterative relationship between theory and practice in knowledge organization systems (2006) 0.01 
    0.010840065 = product of:
  0.04336026 = sum of:
    0.04336026 = product of:
      0.08672052 = sum of:
        0.08672052 = weight(_text_:organization in 2517) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08672052 = score(doc=2517,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.48245144 = fieldWeight in 2517, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2517)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Abstract
    In the global learning society, we need to understand how knowledge is transferred within one field and among different fields. In addition, we need to know how to create an atmosphere of tolerance for different points of view. One way of achieving understanding between different cultures and from different vantage points within the same culture is to study the relationship(s) between theory and practice. For this purpose, it is useful to understand the relationship(s) among ideas, how initial ideas migrate into practice and back into theory, and how "best practices" are identified and become widespread. In this paper, knowledge organization systems are used as examples of how knowledge organization systems are created, how knowledge of the systems may be disseminated, and how that new knowledge is integrated into accepted theory and practice. This examination provides clues about the development of theories and practices that can enhance the contributions knowledge organization systems make to the global learning society.
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol.10
    Source
    Knowledge organization for a global learning society: Proceedings of the 9th International ISKO Conference, 4-7 July 2006, Vienna, Austria. Hrsg.: G. Budin, C. Swertz u. K. Mitgutsch
  20. Beghtol, C.: ¬A whole, its kinds, and its parts (2000) 0.01 
    0.010013623 = product of:
  0.040054493 = sum of:
    0.040054493 = product of:
      0.080108985 = sum of:
        0.080108985 = weight(_text_:organization in 91) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.080108985 = score(doc=91,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.44566956 = fieldWeight in 91, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=91)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol.7
    Source
    Dynamism and stability in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the 6th International ISKO-Conference, 10-13 July 2000, Toronto, Canada. Ed.: C. Beghtol et al

Years

Languages

  • e 28
  • i 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 28
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Themes