Search (14 results, page 1 of 1)

0.06496286 = product of:
  0.12992571 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=632,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 632, 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=632)
    0.11790973 = sum of:
      0.07009536 = weight(_text_:organization in 632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07009536 = score(doc=632,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.38996086 = fieldWeight in 632, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=632)
      0.047814365 = weight(_text_:22 in 632) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.047814365 = score(doc=632,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 632, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=632)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

This paper maps the concepts "space" and "dimensionality" in classifications, in particular in visualizations hereof, from a historical perspective. After a historical excursion in the domain of classification theory of what in mathematics is known as dimensionality reduction in representations of a single universe of knowledge, its potentiality will be explored for information retrieval and navigation in the multiverse of the World Wide Web.

Content

This paper is an adaptation and augmented version of a paper presented at the NASKO 2011 conference: Charles van den Heuvel. 2011. Multidimensional classifications: Past and future conceptualizations and visualizations. In Smiraglia, Richard P., ed. Proceedings from North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization, Vol. 3. Toronto, Canada, pp. 105-21. Vgl.: http://www.ergon-verlag.de/isko_ko/downloads/ko_39_2012_6_e.pdf.

Date

22. 2.2013 11:31:25

Source

Knowledge organization. 39(2012) no.6, S.446-460

0.055682447 = product of:
  0.11136489 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 1429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=1429,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 1429, 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=1429)
    0.10106549 = sum of:
      0.060081743 = weight(_text_:organization in 1429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.060081743 = score(doc=1429,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.33425218 = fieldWeight in 1429, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1429)
      0.04098374 = weight(_text_:22 in 1429) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04098374 = score(doc=1429,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1429, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1429)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

I outline a major segment of the history of the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) in Hungary and all related important events and activities. Significant and committed specialists who played prominent role on a national and international level are also mentioned. It's not an overstatement, that the usage and publications of the UDC in Hungary are significant milestones in the international history of UDC. The usage of UDC has been very widespread and it is found in different types of libraries. People who were responsible for the developing of information retrieval systems and quality of these methods were very engaged and participated in international activities. There were several huge libraries such as special, academic, municipal and national library where UDC has been employed since quite early on and the leaders of these pioneer libraries travelled widely and were active in international researches and practices.

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol. 14

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

0.023868447 = product of:
  0.09547379 = sum of:
    0.09547379 = sum of:
      0.06132067 = weight(_text_:organization in 3509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.06132067 = score(doc=3509,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.34114468 = fieldWeight in 3509, 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=3509)
      0.03415312 = weight(_text_:22 in 3509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03415312 = score(doc=3509,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3509, 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=3509)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In light of ongoing debates about ontological vs. epistemological approaches to knowledge organization (KO), this paper examines E. C. Richardson's treatment of ontology and epistemology in his theory of classification. According to Richardson, there is a natural order of things in the world accessible to human cognition, which may be expressed in two classificatory orders: evolutionary classification, which ranges classes of things from the most simple to the most complex, and logical classification, which ranges classes of things in the inverse order, from the most complex to the most simple. Evolutionary classification reflects ontological order and logical classification reflects epistemological order: both are faces of a single natural order. Such a view requires adherence to a representationalist, or, in Hjorland's (2008) terms, positivist understanding of epistemology, wherein human knowledge faithfully mirrors the structure of the external world. Richardson's harmonization of ontology and epistemology will find little favor among proponents of the currently fashionable pragmatist approach to KO. Nevertheless, it constitutes an early version of what Gnoli (2004) terms a naturalistic epistemology, which, once deepened and clarified, offers the best prospects for an explicit expression of both the ontological and epistemological dimensions of knowledge within a single classification of general scope.

Pages

S.15-22

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.12

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

0.017389156 = product of:
  0.06955662 = sum of:
    0.06955662 = sum of:
      0.035403505 = weight(_text_:organization in 116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035403505 = score(doc=116,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.19695997 = fieldWeight in 116, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=116)
      0.03415312 = weight(_text_:22 in 116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03415312 = score(doc=116,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 116, 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=116)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

3. 3.2016 18:59:22

Source

Knowledge organization. 39(2012) no.6, S.466-468

0.01405033 = product of:
  0.05620132 = sum of:
    0.05620132 = product of:
      0.11240264 = sum of:
        0.11240264 = weight(_text_:organization in 1360) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11240264 = score(doc=1360,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.62532854 = fieldWeight in 1360, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1360)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This article discusses the relation between epistemology, social organization and knowledge organization. Three examples are used to show how this relation has proven to be historically stable: 1) the organization of knowledge in 18th century encyclopedias; 2) the problem of bias in the international introduction of DDC in early 20th century libraries in Scandinavia; and 3) the practice of social tagging and folksonomies in contemporary late capitalist society. By using the concept of 'materiality' and the theoretical contribution on the documentality of social objects by Maurizio Ferraris, an understanding of the character of the connection between epistemology and social order in knowledge organization systems is achieved.

Content

Beitrag im Rahmen eines Special Issue: 'Paradigms of Knowledge and its Organization: The Tree, the Net and Beyond,' edited by Fulvio Mazzocchi and Gian Carlo Fedeli. - Vgl.: http://www.ergon-verlag.de/isko_ko/downloads/ko_40_2013_6_d.pdf.

Source

Knowledge organization. 40(2013) no.6, S.384-391

0.013142297 = product of:
  0.026284594 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 5800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=5800,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 5800, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5800)
    0.017701752 = product of:
      0.035403505 = sum of:
        0.035403505 = weight(_text_:organization in 5800) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035403505 = score(doc=5800,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19695997 = fieldWeight in 5800, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5800)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Shiyali Ramamrita Ranganathan's theory of classification spans a number of works over a number of decades. And while he was devoted to solving many problems in the practice of librarianship, and is known as the father of library science in India (Garfield, 1984), his work in classification revolves around one central concern. His classification research addressed the problems that arose from introducing new ideas into a scheme for classification, while maintaining a meaningful hierarchical and systematically arranged order of classes. This is because hierarchical and systematically arranged classes are the defining characteristic of useful classification. To lose this order is to through the addition of new classes is to introduce confusion, if not chaos, and to move toward a useless classification - or at least one that requires complete revision. In the following chapter, I outline the stages, and the elements of those stages, in Ranganathan's thought on classification from 1926-1972, as well as posthumous work that continues his agenda. And while facets figure prominently in all of these stages; but for Ranganathan to achieve his goal, he must continually add to this central feature of his theory of classification. I will close this chapter with an outline of persistent problems that represent research fronts for the field. Chief among these are what to do about scheme change and the open question about the rigor of information modeling in light of semantic web developments.

Source

Dimensions of knowledge: facets for knowledge organization. Eds.: R.P. Smiraglia, u. H.-L. Lee

0.010621051 = product of:
  0.042484205 = sum of:
    0.042484205 = product of:
      0.08496841 = sum of:
        0.08496841 = weight(_text_:organization in 851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08496841 = score(doc=851,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.47270393 = fieldWeight in 851, 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=851)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper will examine the documentary universalism defended by Paul Otlet, as an aspect of his universalist philosophy. We will particularly be focusing on two elements of his knowledge organization theory: text and image documents. Then we will compare Otlet's universalist approach with the challenges of the "universal search" at the internet age. In order to discuss Paul Otlet's legacy, related to universal search and UDC role, we are currently analyzing the UIR archives, and more broadly, the Mundaneum's archives. The most important part of our research carried in the Mundaneum's archives will concern the Universal Iconographic Repertory (UIR) and what it reveals about the nature of the UDC and its's role in the universal search. This term covers both search engines and online libraries' catalogs tailored for searching on the Web.

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.13

Source

Categories, contexts and relations in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Twelfth International ISKO Conference 6-9 August 2012, Mysore, India. Eds.: Neelameghan, A. u. K.S. Raghavan

0.009198101 = product of:
  0.036792405 = sum of:
    0.036792405 = product of:
      0.07358481 = sum of:
        0.07358481 = weight(_text_:organization in 3510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07358481 = score(doc=3510,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.40937364 = fieldWeight in 3510, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3510)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

A major characteristic of classification is teleology interpreted as a linear progression toward knowledge. G.W.F. Hegel's three stages of knowledge development: Being (Sein), Essence (Wesen), and Idea (Begriff), explicated in his Science of logic form such a progression. Feminist postcolonial critic Gayatri Spivak calls this kind of progression as an "epistemograph". Classification is a manifestation of Western logic and the sequence of main classes is illustrative of the progression that reflects Hegel's epistemograph. DDC and UDC between them represent library classification globally and use a sequence of main classes derived from Hegel and indirectly from Bacon. The lingering consequences of this heritage still create dilemmas in our organization of knowledge.

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.12

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

0.009198101 = product of:
  0.036792405 = sum of:
    0.036792405 = product of:
      0.07358481 = sum of:
        0.07358481 = weight(_text_:organization in 3860) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07358481 = score(doc=3860,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.40937364 = fieldWeight in 3860, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3860)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The studies of library classifications generally interact with a historical approach that contextualizes the research and with the ideas related to classification that are typical of Philosophy. In the 19th century, the North-American philosopher and educator William Torrey Harris developed a book classification at the St. Louis Public School, based on Francis Bacon and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. The objective of the present study is to analyze Harris's classification, reflecting upon his theoretical and philosophical backgrounds in order to understand Harris's contribution to Knowledge Organization (KO). To achieve such objective, this study adopts a critical - descriptive approach for the analysis. The results show some influences of Bacon and Hegel in Harris's classification

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.

0.00876192 = product of:
  0.03504768 = sum of:
    0.03504768 = product of:
      0.07009536 = sum of:
        0.07009536 = weight(_text_:organization in 825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07009536 = score(doc=825,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.38996086 = fieldWeight in 825, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=825)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.13

Source

Categories, contexts and relations in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Twelfth International ISKO Conference 6-9 August 2012, Mysore, India. Eds.: Neelameghan, A. u. K.S. Raghavan

0.0062585147 = product of:
  0.025034059 = sum of:
    0.025034059 = product of:
      0.050068118 = sum of:
        0.050068118 = weight(_text_:organization in 3849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050068118 = score(doc=3849,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.27854347 = fieldWeight in 3849, 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=3849)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Various fields, each with its own theories, techniques, and tools, are concerned with identifying and representing the conceptual structure of specific knowledge domains. This paper compares facet analysis, an analytic technique coming out of knowledge organization (especially as undertaken by members of the Classification Research Group (CRG)), with semantic frame analysis, an analytic technique coming out of lexical semantics (especially as undertaken by the developers of Frame-Net) The investigation addresses three questions: 1) how do CRG-style facet analysis and semantic frame analysis characterize the conceptual structures that they identify?; 2) how similar are the techniques they use?; and, 3) how similar are the conceptual structures they produce? Facet analysis is concerned with the logical categories underlying the terminology of an entire field, while semantic frame analysis is concerned with the participant-and-prop structure manifest in sentences about a type of situation or event. When their scope of application is similar, as, for example, in the areas of the performing arts or education, the resulting facets and semantic frame elements often bear striking resemblance, without being the same; facets are more often expressed as semantic types, while frame elements are more often expressed as roles.

Source

Knowledge organization. 44(2017) no.6, S.397-404

0.0053105257 = product of:
  0.021242103 = sum of:
    0.021242103 = product of:
      0.042484205 = sum of:
        0.042484205 = weight(_text_:organization in 3479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042484205 = score(doc=3479,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23635197 = fieldWeight in 3479, 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=3479)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Knowledge organization. 37(2010) no.2, S.121-138

0.004797954 = product of:
  0.019191816 = sum of:
    0.019191816 = weight(_text_:information in 3945) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019191816 = score(doc=3945,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 3945, 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=3945)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present the initial relationship between the Classification Research Group (CRG) and the Center for Documentation and Communication Research (CDCR) and how this relationship changed between 1952 and 1970. The theory of normative behavior and its concepts of worldviews, social norms, social types, and information behavior are used to characterize the relationship between the small worlds of the two groups with the intent of understanding the gap between early classification research and information retrieval (IR) research. Design/methodology/approach This is a mixed method analysis of two groups as evidenced in published artifacts by and about their work. A thorough review of historical literature about the groups as well as their own published works was employed and an author co-citation analysis was used to characterize the conceptual similarities and differences of the two groups of researchers. Findings The CRG focused on fundamental principles to aid classification and retrieval of information. The CDCR were more inclined to develop practical methods of retrieval without benefit of good theoretical foundations. The CRG began it work under the contention that the general classification schemes at the time were inadequate for the developing IR mechanisms. The CDCR rejected the classification schemes of the times and focused on developing punch card mechanisms and processes that were generously funded by both government and corporate funding. Originality/value This paper provides a unique historical analysis of two groups of influential researchers in the field of library and information science.

0.004425438 = product of:
  0.017701752 = sum of:
    0.017701752 = product of:
      0.035403505 = sum of:
        0.035403505 = weight(_text_:organization in 3484) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035403505 = score(doc=3484,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19695997 = fieldWeight in 3484, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3484)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Knowledge organization. 37(2010) no.2, S.139-148