Search (19 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0138311 = product of:
  0.0553244 = sum of:
    0.0553244 = weight(_text_:standards in 400) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0553244 = score(doc=400,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22470023 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.24621427 = fieldWeight in 400, 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=400)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Für die inhaltliche Erschließung von Sach- und Fachliteratur stehen heutzutage etablierte Verfahren und Standards zur Verfügung. Anders verhält es sich dagegen mit der Erschließung von Schöner Literatur und Bildern. Beide Medien sind sehr verschieden und haben doch eines gemeinsam. Sie lassen sich mit den Regeln für Sach- und Fachliteratur nicht zufriedenstellend inhaltlich erschließen. Dieses Problem erkannten in den 1970er und 80er Jahren beide Autoren, deren Methoden ich hier verglichen habe. Annelise Mark Pejtersen bemühte sich um eine Lösung für die Schöne Literatur und wählte dabei einen empirischen Ansatz. Sara Shatford versuchte durch theoretische Überlegungen eine Lösung für Bilder zu erarbeiten. Der empirische wie der theoretische Ansatz führten zu Methoden, die das jeweilige Medium unter verschiedenen Aspekten betrachten. Diese Aspekten basieren in beiden Fällen auf denselben Fragen. Dennoch unterscheiden sie sich stark voneinander sowohl im Hinblick auf die Inhalte, die sie aufnehmen können, als auch hinsichtlich ihrer Struktur. Eine Anwendung einer der Methoden auf das jeweils andere Medium erscheint daher nicht sinnvoll. In dieser Arbeit werden die Methoden von Pejtersen und Shatford zunächst einzeln erläutert. Im Anschluss werden die Aspekte beider Methoden vergleichend gegenübergestellt. Dazu werden ausgewählte Beispiele mit beiden Methoden erschlossen. Abschließend wird geprüft, ob die wechselseitige Erschließung, wie sie im Vergleich angewendet wurde, in der Praxis sinnvoll ist und ob es Medien gibt, deren Erschließung mit beiden Methoden interessant wäre.

0.012264134 = product of:
  0.049056537 = sum of:
    0.049056537 = product of:
      0.098113075 = sum of:
        0.098113075 = weight(_text_:organization in 856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.098113075 = score(doc=856,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.5458315 = fieldWeight in 856, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=856)
      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

0.0076650837 = product of:
  0.030660335 = sum of:
    0.030660335 = product of:
      0.06132067 = sum of:
        0.06132067 = weight(_text_:organization in 5315) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06132067 = score(doc=5315,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.34114468 = fieldWeight in 5315, 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=5315)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Fiction content analysis and retrieval are interesting specific topics for two major reasons: 1) the extensive use of fictional works; and, 2) the multimodality and interpretational nature of fiction. The primary challenge in the analysis of fictional content is that there is no single meaning to be analysed; the analysis is an ongoing process involving an interaction between the text produced by author, the reader and the society in which the interaction occurs. Furthermore, different audiences have specific needs to be taken into consideration. This article explores the topic of fiction knowledge organization, including both classification and indexing. It provides a broad and analytical overview of the literature as well as describing several experimental approaches and developmental projects for the analysis of fictional content. Traditional fiction indexing has been mainly based on the factual aspects of the work; this has then been expanded to handle different aspects of the fictional work. There have been attempts made to develop vocabularies for fiction indexing. All the major classification schemes use the genre and language/culture of fictional works when subdividing fictional works into subclasses. The evolution of shelf classification of fiction and the appearance of different types of digital tools have revolutionized the classification of fiction, making it possible to integrate both indexing and classification of fictional works.

Series

Reviews of concepts in knowledge organization

Source

Knowledge organization. 46(2019) no.4, S.320-332

0.007510218 = product of:
  0.030040871 = sum of:
    0.030040871 = product of:
      0.060081743 = sum of:
        0.060081743 = weight(_text_:organization in 3626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060081743 = score(doc=3626,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.33425218 = fieldWeight in 3626, 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=3626)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The concept of reader-interest classifications and its related terminology have shown a well-established presence and common characteristics in the knowledge organization literature for more than half a century. During the period 1952-1995, it was not unusual to find works, projects and discourses using a common core of characteristics and terms to refer to a recognizable type of projects involving alternative classifications to the DDC and other traditional practices in libraries. The use of reader-interest classification related terms and references drastically declined since 1995, although similar projects and characteristics are being used until the present day such as those of implementation of BISAC in American public libraries. The present paper attempts to overview the concept and terminology of reader-interest classifications in a historical perspective emphasizing the transformation of the concept and its remaining characteristics in time.

Source

Knowledge organization. 44(2017) no.3, S.234-246

0.0053105257 = product of:
  0.021242103 = sum of:
    0.021242103 = product of:
      0.042484205 = sum of:
        0.042484205 = weight(_text_:organization in 4554) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042484205 = score(doc=4554,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.23635197 = fieldWeight in 4554, 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=4554)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Knowledge organization. 38(2011) no.3, S.262-277

0.004425438 = product of:
  0.017701752 = sum of:
    0.017701752 = product of:
      0.035403505 = sum of:
        0.035403505 = weight(_text_:organization in 5266) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035403505 = score(doc=5266,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17974974 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050415643 = queryNorm
            0.19695997 = fieldWeight in 5266, 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=5266)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Knowledge organization. 46(2019) no.3, S.199-208

0.00424829 = product of:
  0.01699316 = sum of:
    0.01699316 = weight(_text_:information in 1964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01699316 = score(doc=1964,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 1964, 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=1964)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Kirjasampo.fi is a Web service for fiction. It was constructed after rethinking all the phases of metadata production, and is the first Finnish information system for libraries to be built with the tools of the Semantic Web. Kirjasampo is based on a metadata schema for fiction that uses a Resource Description Framework (RDF) data model. A user-friendly annotation editor enables library professionals to save, accumulate, and distribute literary knowledge and tacit information. The goal of Kirjasampo is to describe the contents of literary works based on the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records. Content description is done using ontologies, which enable a flexible linking of metadata.

0.0037164795 = product of:
  0.014865918 = sum of:
    0.014865918 = weight(_text_:information in 3224) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014865918 = score(doc=3224,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 3224, 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=3224)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Little is known about what factors influence users' continued use of social cataloging sites. This study therefore examines the impacts of key factors from theories of information systems (IS) success and sense of community (SOC) on users' continuance intention in the social cataloging context. Data collected from an online survey of 323 social cataloging users provide empirical support for the research model. The findings indicate that both information quality (IQ) and system quality (SQ) are significant predictors of satisfaction and SOC, which in turn lead to users' intentions to continue using these sites. In addition, SOC was found to affect continuance intention not only directly, but also indirectly through satisfaction. Theoretically, this study draws attention to a largely unexplored but essential area of research in the social cataloging literature and provides a fundamental basis to understand the determinants of continued social cataloging usage. From a managerial perspective, the findings suggest that social cataloging service providers should constantly focus their efforts on the quality control of their contents and system, and the enhancement of SOC among their users.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 67(2016) no.12, S.3022-3035

0.0036413912 = product of:
  0.014565565 = sum of:
    0.014565565 = weight(_text_:information in 4720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014565565 = score(doc=4720,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 4720, 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=4720)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This chapter considers fiction retrieval research and initiatives, providing an overview of some of the approaches that have been developed. In particular, it describes two recent approaches to fiction retrieval that have made use of theoretical concepts drawn from literary theory. Fiction is an interesting information domain because it includes documents that serve two purposes, which are reading for pleasure and scholarly study (Beghtol, 1994), but fiction retrieval has not always focused on both aspects. In the 19th century, the approach was to treat fiction from a knowledge perspective within general classification schemes. The Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), the Library of Congress Classification (LCC) and the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) contain classes for literature, with the main subdivision in each case being the language in which it is written. Further subdivision is possible based on literary form, historical period or the works of an individual author (Riesthuis, 1997).

Source

Innovations in information retrieval: perspectives for theory and practice. Eds.: A. Foster, u. P. Rafferty

0.003358568 = product of:
  0.013434272 = sum of:
    0.013434272 = weight(_text_:information in 4550) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013434272 = score(doc=4550,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.1517936 = fieldWeight in 4550, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4550)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - Library Director Jarmo Saarti introduced a wide or ideal model for fiction in literature in his dissertation, published in 1999. It introduces those aspects that should be included in an information system for fiction. Such aspects include literary prose and its intertextual references to other works, the writer, readers' and critics' receptions of the work as well as a researcher's view. It is also important to note how libraries approach a literary work by means of inventory, classification and content description. The most ambiguous of the aspects relates to that context in cultural history, which the work reflects and is a part of. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach - Since the model consists of several components which are not found in present library information systems and cannot be implemented by them, a new way had to be found to produce, save, process and present fiction-related metadata. The Semantic Computing Research Group of Aalto University has developed several Semantic Web services for use in the field of culture, so cooperation with it and the use of Semantic Web tools were a natural starting point for the construction of the new service. Kirjasampo will be based on the Semantic Web RDF data model. The model enables a flexible linking of metadata derived from different sources, and it can be used to build a Semantic Web that can be approached contextually from different angles. Findings - The "semantically enriched" ideal model for fiction has hence been realised, at least to some extent: Kirjasampo supports literature-related metadata that is more varied than earlier and aims to account for different contexts within literature and connections with regard to other cultural phenomena. It also includes contemporary reviews of works and, as such, readers' receptions as well. Modern readers can share their views on works, once the user interface of the server is completed. It will include several features from the Kirjasto 2.0-application, which enables the evaluation, description and recommendations of works. The service should be online by the end of Spring 2011. Research limitations/implications - The project involves novel collaboration between a public library and a computer science research unit, and utilises a novel approach to the description of fiction. Practical implications - The system encourages user participation in the description of fiction and is of practical benefit to librarians in understanding both how fiction is organised and how users interpret the same. Originality/value - Upon completion, the service will be the first Finnish information system for libraries built with the tools of the Semantic Web which offers a completely new user environment and application for data produced by libraries. It also strives to create a new model for saving and producing data, available to both library professionals and readers. The aim is to save, accumulate and distribute literary knowledge, experiences and silent information.

0.0030344925 = product of:
  0.01213797 = sum of:
    0.01213797 = weight(_text_:information in 4540) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01213797 = score(doc=4540,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 4540, 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=4540)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Although much previous research has considered how we read, less attention has been paid to why we read, and the influence not only of individual or text-related factors on a reader's intention to read, but also of broader societal factors. This article presents a novel, empirically-based model of fiction reading in a public library context, taking into account the characteristics differentiating the readers of individual fiction genres. It begins with a literature review of factors motivating a reading choice or habit, and of the effects of reading different fiction genres, before introducing three previous studies by the first author into readers' attitudes towards, and engagement with, fiction and selected fiction genres. The methodologies are then summarized both for the three previous studies and the present study. The authors present a combined analysis that integrates the findings of the previous studies in order to generate a new, evidence-based model for the reading of fiction genres. Incorporating both demographic and motivational aspects, this model illustrates how the broad themes of the fiction reader profile interrelate, giving them a new causal ordering. Finally, there is a discussion of the implications of this work for library and information science research and practitioner communities.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 69(2018) no.11, S.1291-1303

0.0030039945 = product of:
  0.012015978 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 1784) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=1784,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1784, 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=1784)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Die vorliegende Masterarbeit setzt sich mit dem Information Retrieval anhand der Repräsentation von Charakteren der Kinder und Jugendbuchserie "Die drei ???" mit dem Datenbanksystem Access auseinander. Dabei werden sämtliche Aspekte von der Informations- und Datenbeschaffung aus 55 "Die drei ???"-Büchern über die Datenbankerstellung und -aufbereitung bis hin zu den abschließenden Evaluationen beschrieben. Insbesondere versucht die Arbeit die Nutzergruppe Autoren abzudecken, so dass die Datenbank ihnen eine erleichterte Figurenübersicht und eine Hilfestellung bei der Figurensuche geben soll.

0.0030039945 = product of:
  0.012015978 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 1952) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=1952,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 1952, 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=1952)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Publishers present novels with summaries, librarians provide subject headings, classification numbers and annotations, literary theorists write reviews. Readers share opinions and tags in social networks. These groups share interest in the same novel and possibly in the same library catalogs. I analyze the descriptions of novels written by these four groups to propose the enhancement of library catalogs. Results show that the story, information about the author, genre, personal experience with reading the novel, and an evaluation (awards, personal evaluation) are consistently presented by all four groups and should become standard elements for the subject description of fiction.

0.0030039945 = product of:
  0.012015978 = sum of:
    0.012015978 = weight(_text_:information in 5481) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012015978 = score(doc=5481,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 5481, 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=5481)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

0.0025748524 = product of:
  0.01029941 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 842) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=842,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 842, 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=842)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Information processing and management. 52(2016) no.1, S.129-138

0.0025748524 = product of:
  0.01029941 = sum of:
    0.01029941 = weight(_text_:information in 2388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01029941 = score(doc=2388,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2388, 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=2388)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Series

Communications in computer and information science; 631

0.0021457102 = product of:
  0.008582841 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 3963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=3963,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3963, 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=3963)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Vortrag im Rahmen der Session 93. Cataloguing der WORLD LIBRARY AND INFORMATION CONGRESS: 76TH IFLA GENERAL CONFERENCE AND ASSEMBLY, 10-15 August 2010, Gothenburg, Sweden

0.0021457102 = product of:
  0.008582841 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 3347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=3347,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3347, 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=3347)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.2, S.348-364

0.0021457102 = product of:
  0.008582841 = sum of:
    0.008582841 = weight(_text_:information in 3789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008582841 = score(doc=3789,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08850355 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050415643 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3789, 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=3789)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 68(2017) no.9, S.2154-2165