Search (26 results, page 1 of 2)

0.023770738 = product of:
  0.047541477 = sum of:
    0.01213797 = weight(_text_:information in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01213797 = score(doc=2657,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 2657, 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=2657)
    0.035403505 = product of:
      0.07080701 = sum of:
        0.07080701 = weight(_text_:organization in 2657) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07080701 = score(doc=2657,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.39391994 = fieldWeight in 2657, 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=2657)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

In this paper a framework for the construction and organization of knowledge organization and representation languages in the context of digital photograph collections is presented. It analyses exigencies of photographs as documentary objects, as well as several models of indexing, different proposals of languages and a theoretical revision of ontologies in this research field, in relation to visual documents. In considering the photograph as an analysis object, it is appropriate to study all its attributes: features, components or properties of an objeet that can be represented in an information processing system. The attributes which are related to visual features include cognitive and affective answers and elements that describe spatial, semantic, symbolic or emotional features about a photograph. In any case, it is necessary to treat: a) morphological and material attributes (emulsion, state of preservation); b) biographical attributes: (school or trend, publication or exhibition); c) attributes of content: what and how a photograph says something; d) relational attributes: visual documents establish relationships with other documents that can be analysed in order to understand them.

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

0.023531828 = product of:
  0.047063656 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 2691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=2691,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 2691, 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=2691)
    0.03504768 = product of:
      0.07009536 = sum of:
        0.07009536 = weight(_text_:organization in 2691) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07009536 = score(doc=2691,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.38996086 = fieldWeight in 2691, 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=2691)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

We describe here NKRL (Narrative Knowledge Representation Language), a semantic formalism for taking into account the characteristics of narrative multimedia documents. In these documents, the information content consists in the description of 'events' that relate the real or intended behaviour of some 'actors' (characters, personages, etc.). Narrative documents of an economic interest correspond to news stories, corporate documents, normative and legal texts, intelligence messages, representation of patient's medical records, etc. NKRL is characterised by the use of several knowledge representation principles and several high-level inference tools.

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

0.023441838 = product of:
  0.046883676 = sum of:
    0.005149705 = weight(_text_:information in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005149705 = score(doc=2293,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.058186423 = fieldWeight in 2293, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2293)
    0.041733973 = sum of:
      0.021242103 = weight(_text_:organization in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.021242103 = score(doc=2293,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.11817598 = fieldWeight in 2293, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2293)
      0.02049187 = weight(_text_:22 in 2293) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02049187 = score(doc=2293,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050415643 = queryNorm
          0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 2293, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=2293)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

27. 9.2005 14:22:19

Footnote

Rez. in: Knowledge organization 30(2003) no.2, S.114-115 (M. Hudon); "This most interesting contribution to the literature of subject cataloguing originates in the author's doctoral dissertation, prepared under the direction of jerry Saye at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In seven highly readable chapters, Alenka Sauperl develops possible answers to her principal research question: How do cataloguers determine or identify the topic of a document and choose appropriate subject representations? Specific questions at the source of this research an a process which has not been a frequent object of study include: Where do cataloguers look for an overall sense of what a document is about? How do they get an overall sense of what a document is about, especially when they are not familiar with the discipline? Do they consider only one or several possible interpretations? How do they translate meanings in appropriate and valid class numbers and subject headings? Using a strictly qualitative methodology, Dr. Sauperl's research is a study of twelve cataloguers in reallife situation. The author insists an the holistic rather than purely theoretical understanding of the process she is targeting. Participants in the study were professional cataloguers, with at least one year experience in their current job at one of three large academic libraries in the Southeastern United States. All three libraries have a large central cataloguing department, and use OCLC sources and the same automated system; the context of cataloguing tasks is thus considered to be reasonably comparable. All participants were volunteers in this study which combined two datagathering techniques: the think-aloud method and time-line interviews. A model of the subject cataloguing process was first developed from observations of a group of six cataloguers who were asked to independently perform original cataloguing an three nonfiction, non-serial items selected from materials regularly assigned to them for processing. The model was then used for follow-up interviews. Each participant in the second group of cataloguers was invited to reflect an his/her work process for a recent challenging document they had catalogued. Results are presented in 12 stories describing as many personal approaches to subject cataloguing. From these stories a summarization is offered and a theoretical model of subject cataloguing is developed which, according to the author, represents a realistic approach to subject cataloguing. Stories alternate comments from the researcher and direct quotations from the observed or interviewed cataloguers. Not surprisingly, the participants' stories reveal similarities in the sequence and accomplishment of several tasks in the process of subject cataloguing. Sauperl's proposed model, described in Chapter 5, includes as main stages: 1) Examination of the book and subject identification; 2) Search for subject headings; 3) Classification. Chapter 6 is a hypothetical Gase study, using the proposed model to describe the various stages of cataloguing a hypothetical resource. ...
This document will be particularly useful to subject cataloguing teachers and trainers who could use the model to design case descriptions and exercises. We believe it is an accurate description of the reality of subject cataloguing today. But now that we know how things are dope, the next interesting question may be: Is that the best way? Is there a better, more efficient, way to do things? We can only hope that Dr. Sauperl will soon provide her own view of methods and techniques that could improve the flow of work or address the cataloguers' concern as to the lack of feedback an their work. Her several excellent suggestions for further research in this area all build an bits and pieces of what is done already, and stay well away from what could be done by the various actors in the area, from the designers of controlled vocabularies and authority files to those who use these tools an a daily basis to index, classify, or search for information."

0.01680845 = product of:
  0.0336169 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 6054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=6054,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 6054, 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=6054)
    0.025034059 = product of:
      0.050068118 = sum of:
        0.050068118 = weight(_text_:organization in 6054) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050068118 = score(doc=6054,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.27854347 = fieldWeight in 6054, 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=6054)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Knowledge organization research has come to question the theoretical distinction between "aboutness" (a document's innate content) and "meaning" (the use to which a document is put). This distinction has relevance beyond Information Studies, particularly in relation to homosexual concerns. Literary criticism, in particular, frequently addresses the question: when is a work "about" homosexuality? This paper explores this literary debate and its implications for the design of subject access systems for gay and lesbian communities. By examining the literary criticism of Herman Melville's Billy Budd, particularly in relation to the theories of Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick in The Epistemology of the Closet (1990), this paper exposes three tensions that designers of gay and lesbian classifications and vocabularies can expect to face. First is a tension between essentialist and constructivist views of homosexuality, which will affect the choice of terms, categories, and references. Second is a tension between minoritizing and universalizing perspectives on homosexuality. Third is a redefined distinction between aboutness and meaning, in which aboutness refers not to stable document content, but to the system designer's inescapable social and ideological perspectives. Designers of subject access systems can therefore expect to work in a context of intense scrutiny and persistent controversy

Source

Knowledge organization. 27(2000) no.3, S.122-131

0.015395639 = product of:
  0.030791279 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 5589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=5589,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 5589, 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=5589)
    0.02049187 = product of:
      0.04098374 = sum of:
        0.04098374 = weight(_text_:22 in 5589) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04098374 = score(doc=5589,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 5589, 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=5589)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Content analysis is a highly flexible research method that has been widely used in library and information science (LIS) studies with varying research goals and objectives. The research method is applied in qualitative, quantitative, and sometimes mixed modes of research frameworks and employs a wide range of analytical techniques to generate findings and put them into context. This article characterizes content analysis as a systematic, rigorous approach to analyzing documents obtained or generated in the course of research. It briefly describes the steps involved in content analysis, differentiates between quantitative and qualitative content analysis, and shows that content analysis serves the purposes of both quantitative research and qualitative research. The authors draw on selected LIS studies that have used content analysis to illustrate the concepts addressed in the article. The article also serves as a gateway to methodological books and articles that provide more detail about aspects of content analysis discussed only briefly in the article.

Source

Library trends. 55(2006) no.1, S.22-45

0.014868811 = product of:
  0.029737622 = sum of:
    0.009710376 = weight(_text_:information in 2653) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009710376 = score(doc=2653,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.10971737 = fieldWeight in 2653, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2653)
    0.020027246 = product of:
      0.040054493 = sum of:
        0.040054493 = weight(_text_:organization in 2653) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040054493 = score(doc=2653,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.22283478 = fieldWeight in 2653, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2653)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Content

1. Introduction The document at hand is often regarded as the most important entity for analysis in the indexing situation. The indexer's focus is directed to the "entity and its faithful description" (Soergel, 1985, 227) and the indexer is advised to "stick to the text and the author's claims" (Lancaster, 2003, 37). The indexer's aim is to establish the subject matter based an an analysis of the document with the goal of representing the document as truthfully as possible and to ensure the subject representation's validity by remaining neutral and objective. To help indexers with their task they are guided towards particular and important attributes of the document that could help them determine the document's subject matter. The exact attributes the indexer is recommended to examine varies, but typical examples are: the title, the abstract, the table of contents, chapter headings, chapter subheadings, preface, introduction, foreword, the text itself, bibliographical references, index entries, illustrations, diagrams, and tables and their captions. The exact recommendations vary according to the type of document that is being indexed (monographs vs. periodical articles, for instance). It is clear that indexers should provide faithful descriptions, that indexers should represent the author's claims, and that the document's attributes are helpful points of analysis. However, indexers need much more guidance when determining the subject than simply the documents themselves. One approach that could be taken to handle the Situation is a useroriented approach in which it is argued that the indexer should ask, "how should I make this document ... visible to potential users? What terms should I use to convey its knowledge to those interested?" (Albrechtsen, 1993, 222). The basic idea is that indexers need to have the users' information needs and terminology in mind when determining the subject matter of documents as well as when selecting index terms.

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

0.0138311 = product of:
  0.0553244 = sum of:
    0.0553244 = weight(_text_:standards in 2508) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0553244 = score(doc=2508,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.24621427 = fieldWeight in 2508, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2508)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Die Erschließung von Bildern ist ein Gebiet, welches aufgrund der speziellen Eigenschaften des Mediums Bild von der Texterschließung zu unterscheiden ist. In Museen, Archiven, Universitäten und anderen Einrichtungen werden Bildsammlungen schon länger erschlossen. Viele Sammlungen bleiben jedoch unangetastet, da es für die Bilderschließung noch immer an passend zugeschnittenen Erschließungsinstrumenten und Erschließungsmethoden mangelt. Es existieren keine allgemeingültigen Standards, auch deshalb, weil die zu verzeichnenden Sammlungen vielen verschiedenen Instituten unterschiedlicher Wissenschaftsfächer angehören und sie dort unterschiedlichen Zwecken dienen. Diese Arbeit beginnt mit einer Einführung zur Kommunikationstheorie, um damit das Bewusstsein über die Komplexität der von Bildern vermittelten, visuellen Informationen zu schärfen. Anschließend werden Bildsammlungen typologisch sortiert, bevor im einzelnen auf die Theorie der Formal- und Inhaltserschließung von Bildern eingegangen wird. Dabei werden verschiedene Erschließungsinstrumente und -methoden, jeweils unter Einbindung von Beispielen, vorgestellt und ihre Anwendbarkeit für die Bilderschließung beurteilt. Der zweite Teil der Arbeit ist an das Projekt "Prometheus - Das verteilte digitale Bildarchiv für Forschung und Lehre" gebunden. Über Prometheus werden heterogen erschlossene, digitalisierte Bildbestände unter einer gemeinsamen Retrievaloberfläche verfügbar gemacht. Nach einer Einführung in das Projekt, die intendierten Ziele und die Vorstel lung der Techniken, welche das Retrieval über autonom erstellte Datenbanken ermöglichen, werden praktizierte Erschließungsmethoden einzelner, an Prometheus beteiligter Institute, beispielhaft dargestellt. Die sich zuvor in den verschiedenen Kapiteln andeutenden oder schon festgestellten Problematiken der Bilderschließung werden zum Schluss noch einmal zusammengefasst und diskutiert, wobei sie verschiedenen Ebenen, weshalb sie auftreten und worauf sie sich auswirken, zugeordnet werden können.

0.0138311 = product of:
  0.0553244 = sum of:
    0.0553244 = weight(_text_:standards in 2871) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0553244 = score(doc=2871,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.24621427 = fieldWeight in 2871, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2871)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Die Erschließung von Bildern ist ein Gebiet, welches aufgrund der speziellen Eigenschaften des Mediums Bild von der Texterschließung zu unterscheiden ist. In Museen, Archiven, Universitäten und anderen Einrichtungen werden Bildsammlungen schon länger erschlossen. Viele Sammlungen bleiben jedoch unangetastet, da es für die Bilderschließung noch immer an passend zugeschnittenen Erschließungsinstrumenten und Erschließungsmethoden mangelt. Es existieren keine allgemeingültigen Standards, auch deshalb, weil die zu verzeichnenden Sammlungen vielen verschiedenen Instituten unterschiedlicher Wissenschaftsfächer angehören und sie dort unterschiedlichen Zwecken dienen. Diese Arbeit beginnt mit einer Einführung zur Kommunikationstheorie, um damit das Bewusstsein über die Komplexität der von Bildern vermittelten, visuellen Informationen zu schärfen. Anschließend werden Bildsammlungen typologisch sortiert, bevor im einzelnen auf die Theorie der Formal- und Inhaltserschließung von Bildern eingegangen wird. Dabei werden verschiedene Erschließungsinstrumente und -methoden, jeweils unter Einbindung von Beispielen, vorgestellt und ihre Anwendbarkeit für die Bilderschließung beurteilt. Der zweite Teil der Arbeit ist an das Projekt "Prometheus - Das verteilte digitale Bildarchiv für Forschung und Lehre" gebunden. Über Prometheus werden heterogen erschlossene, digitalisierte Bildbestände unter einer gemeinsamen Retrievaloberfläche verfügbar gemacht. Nach einer Einführung in das Projekt, die intendierten Ziele und die Vorstel lung der Techniken, welche das Retrieval über autonom erstellte Datenbanken ermöglichen, werden praktizierte Erschließungsmethoden einzelner, an Prometheus beteiligter Institute, beispielhaft dargestellt. Die sich zuvor in den verschiedenen Kapiteln andeutenden oder schon festgestellten Problematiken der Bilderschließung werden zum Schluss noch einmal zusammengefasst und diskutiert, wobei sie verschiedenen Ebenen, weshalb sie auftreten und worauf sie sich auswirken, zugeordnet werden können.

0.0138311 = product of:
  0.0553244 = sum of:
    0.0553244 = weight(_text_:standards in 4702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0553244 = score(doc=4702,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.24621427 = fieldWeight in 4702, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4702)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - An empirical study has shown that the real process of subject cataloging does not correspond entirely to theoretical descriptions in textbooks and international standards. The purpose of this is paper is to address the issue of whether it be possible for catalogers who have not received formal training to perform subject cataloging in a different way to their trained colleagues. Design/methodology/approach - A qualitative study was conducted in 2001 among five Slovenian public library catalogers. The resulting model is compared to previous findings. Findings - First, all catalogers attempted to determine what the book was about. While the American catalogers tried to understand the topic and the author's intent, the Slovenian catalogers appeared to focus on the topic only. Slovenian and American academic library catalogers did not demonstrate any anticipation of possible uses that users might have of the book, while this was important for American public library catalogers. All catalogers used existing records to build new ones and/or to search for subject headings. The verification of subject representation with the indexing language was the last step in the subject cataloging process of American catalogers, often skipped by Slovenian catalogers. Research limitations/implications - The small and convenient sample limits the findings. Practical implications - Comparison of subject cataloging processes of Slovenian and American catalogers, two different groups, is important because they both contribute to OCLC's WorldCat database. If the cataloging community is building a universal catalog and approaches to subject description are different, then the resulting subject representations might also be different. Originality/value - This is one of the very few empirical studies of subject cataloging and indexing.

0.013010209 = product of:
  0.026020419 = sum of:
    0.00849658 = weight(_text_:information in 133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00849658 = score(doc=133,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.0960027 = fieldWeight in 133, 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=133)
    0.01752384 = product of:
      0.03504768 = sum of:
        0.03504768 = weight(_text_:organization in 133) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03504768 = score(doc=133,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19498043 = fieldWeight in 133, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=133)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

It is vital for library and information science to understand the subject indexing process thoroughly. However, document analysis, the first and most important step in indexing, has not received sufficient attention. As this is an exceptionally hard problem, we still do not dispose of a sound indexing theory. Therefore we have difficulties in teaching indexing and in explaining why a given subject representation is "better" than another. Technological advancements have not helped to close this fundamental gap. To proceed, we should ask the right questions instead. Several types of indexer inconsistencies can be explained as acceptable, yet different conceptualizations which resulting of the variety of groups dealing with a problem from their respective viewpoints. Multiple indexed documents are regarded as the normal case. Intersubjectively replicable indexing results are often questionable or do not constitute interesting cases of indexing at all. In the context of my ongoing dissertation in which I intend to develop an enhanced indexing theory by investigating improvements within a social sciences domain, this paper explains user-oriented selective depth analysis and why I chose that configuration. Strongly influenced by Mai's dissertation, I also communicate my first insights concerning current indexing theories. I agree that I cannot ignore epistemological stances and philosophical issues in language and meaning related to indexing and accept the openness of the interpretive nature of the indexing process. Although I present arguments against the employment of an indexing language as well, it is still indispensable in situations which demand easier access and control by devices. Despite the enormous difficulties the user-oriented and selective depth analysis poses, I argue that it is both feasible and useful if one achieves careful guidance of the possible interpretations. There is some hope because the number of useful interpretations is limited: Every summary is tailored to a purpose, audience and situation. Domain, discourse and social practice entail additional constraints. A pluralistic method mix that focusses on ecologically valid, holistic contexts and employs qualitative methods is recommended. Domain analysis urgently has to be made more practical and applicable. Only then we will be able to investigate empirically domains in order to identify their structures shaped by the corresponding discourse communities. We plan to represent the recognized problem structures and indexing questions of relevance to a small domain in formal, ontological computer models -- if we can find such stable knowledge structures. This would allow us to tailor dynamically summaries for user communities. For practical purposes we suggest to assume a less demanding position than Hjorland's "totality of the epistemological potential". It is sufficent that we identify and represent iteratively the information needs of today's user groups in interactive knowledge-based systems. The best way to formalize such knowledge gained about discourse communities is however unknown. Indexers should stay in direct contact with the community they serve or be part of it to ensure agreement with their viewpoints. Checklist/request-oriented indexing could be very helpful but it remains to be demonstrated how well it will be applicable in the social sciences. A frame-based representation or at least a sophisticated grouping of terms could help to express relational knowledge structures. There remains much work to do since in practice no one has shown yet how such an improved indexing system would work and if the indexing results were really "better".

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

0.007510218 = product of:
  0.030040871 = sum of:
    0.030040871 = product of:
      0.060081743 = sum of:
        0.060081743 = weight(_text_:organization in 2258) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060081743 = score(doc=2258,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.33425218 = fieldWeight in 2258, 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=2258)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.11

Source

Culture and identity in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Tenth International ISKO Conference 5-8 August 2008, Montreal, Canada. Ed. by Clément Arsenault and Joseph T. Tennis

0.0070807007 = product of:
  0.028322803 = sum of:
    0.028322803 = product of:
      0.056645606 = sum of:
        0.056645606 = weight(_text_:organization in 639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056645606 = score(doc=639,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.31513596 = fieldWeight in 639, 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=639)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Knowledge organization. 28(2001) no.4, S.203-204

0.0063070743 = product of:
  0.025228297 = sum of:
    0.025228297 = weight(_text_:information in 1958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025228297 = score(doc=1958,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.2850541 = fieldWeight in 1958, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1958)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Information search and retrieval interactions usually involve information content in the form of document collections, information retrieval systems and interfaces, and the user. To fully understand information search and retrieval interactions between users' cognitive space and the information space, researchers need to turn to cognitive models and theories. In this article, the authors use one of these theories, the basic level theory. Use of the basic level theory to understand human categorization is both appropriate and essential to user-centered design of taxonomies, ontologies, browsing interfaces, and other indexing tools and systems. Analyses of data from two studies involving free sorting by 105 participants of 100 images were conducted. The types of categories formed and category labels were examined. Results of the analyses indicate that image category labels generally belong to superordinate to the basic level, and are generic and interpretive. Implications for research on theories of cognition and categorization, and design of image indexing, retrieval and browsing systems are discussed.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.9, S.1383-1392

0.006007989 = product of:
  0.024031956 = sum of:
    0.024031956 = weight(_text_:information in 6032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024031956 = score(doc=6032,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 6032, 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=6032)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Theories of aboutness and theories of subject analysis and of related concepts such as topicality are often isolated from each other in the literature of information science (IS) and related disciplines. In IS it is important to consider the nature and meaning of these concepts, which is closely related to theoretical and metatheoretical issues in information retrieval (IR). A theory of IR must specify which concepts should be regarded as synonymous concepts and explain how the meaning of the nonsynonymous concepts should be defined

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.9, S.774-778

Theme

Information

0.0058429055 = product of:
  0.011685811 = sum of:
    0.004855188 = weight(_text_:information in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004855188 = score(doc=1858,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.054858685 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
    0.0068306234 = product of:
      0.013661247 = sum of:
        0.013661247 = weight(_text_:22 in 1858) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013661247 = score(doc=1858,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17654699 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.07738023 = fieldWeight in 1858, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1858)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

Footnote

Bade begins his discussion of errors in subject analysis by summarizing the contents of seven records containing what he considers to be egregious errors. The examples were drawn only from items that he has encountered in the course of his work. Five of the seven records were full-level ("I" level) records for Eastern European materials created between 1996 and 2000 in the OCLC WorldCat database. The final two examples were taken from records created by Bade himself over an unspecified period of time. Although he is to be commended for examining the actual items cataloged and for examining mostly items that he claims to have adequate linguistic and subject expertise to evaluate reliably, Bade's methodology has major flaws. First and foremost, the number of examples provided is completely inadequate to draw any conclusions about the extent of the problem. Although an in-depth qualitative analysis of a small number of records might have yielded some valuable insight into factors that contribute to errors in subject analysis, Bade provides no Information about the circumstances under which the live OCLC records he critiques were created. Instead, he offers simplistic explanations for the errors based solely an his own assumptions. He supplements his analysis of examples with an extremely brief survey of other studies regarding errors in subject analysis, which consists primarily of criticism of work done by Sheila Intner. In the end, it is impossible to draw any reliable conclusions about the nature or extent of errors in subject analysis found in records in shared bibliographic databases based an Bade's analysis. In the final third of the essay, Bade finally reveals his true concern: the deintellectualization of cataloging. It would strengthen the essay tremendously to present this as the primary premise from the very beginning, as this section offers glimpses of a compelling argument. Bade laments, "Many librarians simply do not sec cataloging as an intellectual activity requiring an educated mind" (p. 20). Commenting an recent trends in copy cataloging practice, he declares, "The disaster of our time is that this work is being done more and more by people who can neither evaluate nor correct imported errors and offen are forbidden from even thinking about it" (p. 26). Bade argues that the most valuable content found in catalog records is the intellectual content contributed by knowledgeable catalogers, and he asserts that to perform intellectually demanding tasks such as subject analysis reliably and effectively, catalogers must have the linguistic and subject knowledge required to gain at least a rudimentary understanding of the materials that they describe. He contends that requiring catalogers to quickly dispense with materials in unfamiliar languages and subjects clearly undermines their ability to perform the intellectual work of cataloging and leads to an increasing number of errors in the bibliographic records contributed to shared databases.

Imprint

Urbana-Champaign, IL : Illinois University at Urbana-Champaign, Graduate School of Library and Information Science

0.005149705 = product of:
  0.02059882 = sum of:
    0.02059882 = weight(_text_:information in 213) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02059882 = score(doc=213,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 213, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=213)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Die verfügbare multimediale Information nimmt stetig zu, nicht zuletzt durch die Tag für Tag wachsende Zahl an neuer Information im Internet. Damit man dieser Flut Herr werden und diese Information wieder abrufbar machen kann, muss sie annotiert und geeignet in Datenbanken abgelegt werden. Hier besteht das Problem der manuellen Annotation, das einerseits durch die Ermüdung aufgrund der Routinearbeit und andererseits durch die Subjektivität des Annotierenden zu Fehlern in der Annotation führen kann. Unterstützende Systeme, die dem Dokumentar genau diese Routinearbeit abnehmen, können hier bis zu einem gewissen Grad Abhilfe schaffen. Die wissenschaftliche Erschließung von beispielsweise filmbeiträgen wird der Dokumentar zwar immer noch selbst machen müssen und auch sollen, aber die Erkennung und Dokumentation von sog. Einstellungsgrenzen kann durchaus automatisch mit Unterstützung eines Rechners geschehen. In diesem Beitrag zeigen wir anhand von Projekten, die wir durchgeführt haben, wie weit diese Unterstützung des Dokumentars bei der Annotation von Bildern und Videos gehen kann

Source

Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 53(2002) H.1, S.15-21

0.0037164795 = product of:
  0.014865918 = sum of:
    0.014865918 = weight(_text_:information in 2069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014865918 = score(doc=2069,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 2069, 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=2069)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The problem of multiple interpretations of meaning in the indexing process has been mostly avoided by information scientists. Among the few who have addressed this question are Clare Beghtol and Jens Erik Mai. Their findings and findings of other researchers in the area of information science, social psychology, and psycholinguistics indicate that the source of the problem might lie in the background and culture of each indexer or cataloger. Are the catalogers aware of the problem? A general model of the indexing process was developed from observations and interviews of 12 catalogers in three American academic libraries. The model is illustrated with a hypothetical cataloger's process. The study with catalogers revealed that catalogers are aware of the author's, the user's, and their own meaning, but do not try to accommodate them all. On the other hand, they make every effort to build common ground with catalog users by studying documents related to the document being cataloged, and by considering catalog records and subject headings related to the subject identified in the document being cataloged. They try to build common ground with other catalogers by using cataloging tools and by inferring unstated rules of cataloging from examples in the catalogs.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 55(2004) no.1, S.55-63

0.0036413912 = product of:
  0.014565565 = sum of:
    0.014565565 = weight(_text_:information in 4444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014565565 = score(doc=4444,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 4444, 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=4444)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The paper establishes a taxonomy of image-text relationships that reflects the ways that images and text interact. It is applicable to all subject areas and document types. The taxonomy was developed to answer the research question: how does an illustration relate to the text with which it is associated, or, what are the functions of illustration? Developed in a two-stage process - first, analysis of relevant research in children's literature, dictionary development, education, journalism, and library and information design and, second, subsequent application of the first version of the taxonomy to 954 image-text pairs in 45 Web pages (pages with educational content for children, online newspapers, and retail business pages) - the taxonomy identifies 49 relationships and groups them in three categories according to the closeness of the conceptual relationship between image and text. The paper uses qualitative content analysis to illustrate use of the taxonomy to analyze four image-text pairs in government publications and discusses the implications of the research for information retrieval and document design.

0.0030344925 = product of:
  0.01213797 = sum of:
    0.01213797 = weight(_text_:information in 1590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01213797 = score(doc=1590,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 1590, 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=1590)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Imprint

Medford, NJ : Information Today

Theme

Information

0.0030344925 = product of:
  0.01213797 = sum of:
    0.01213797 = weight(_text_:information in 2122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01213797 = score(doc=2122,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 2122, 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=2122)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Although images are visual information sources with little or no text associated with them, users still tend to use text to describe images and formulate queries. This is because digital libraries and search engines provide mostly text query options and rely on text annotations for representation and retrieval of the semantic content of images. While the main focus of image research is on indexing and retrieval of individual images, the general topic of image browsing and indexing, and retrieval of groups of images has not been adequately investigated. Comparisons of descriptions of individual images as well as labels of groups of images supplied by users using cognitive models are scarce. This work fills this gap. Using the basic level theory as a framework, a comparison of the descriptions of individual images and labels assigned to groups of images by 180 participants in three studies found a marked difference in their level of abstraction. Results confirm assertions by previous researchers in LIS and other fields that groups of images are labeled using more superordinate level terms while individual image descriptions are mainly at the basic level. Implications for design of image browsing interfaces, taxonomies, thesauri, and similar tools are discussed.

Source

Information processing and management. 44(2008) no.5, S.1741-1753