Search (30 results, page 2 of 2)

  • × author_ss:"Tennis, J.T."
  1. Tennis, J.T.: Four orders of classification theory and their implications (2018) 0.00 
    0.0013083118 = product of:
  0.007195715 = sum of:
    0.0044180867 = weight(_text_:a in 5264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044180867 = score(doc=5264,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 5264, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5264)
    0.0027776284 = weight(_text_:s in 5264) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0027776284 = score(doc=5264,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.09609913 = fieldWeight in 5264, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5264)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Footnote
    Beitrag in einem Themenheft: 'Ethos of Care: A Festschrift for Dr. Allyson Carlyle at the Occasion of her Retirement'.
    Source
    Cataloging and classification quarterly. 56(2018) no.8, S.702-710
    Type
    a
  2. Tennis, J.T.: Measured time : imposing a temporal metric to classificatory structures 0.00 
    0.001302741 = product of:
  0.0071650753 = sum of:
    0.0047346503 = weight(_text_:a in 3529) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0047346503 = score(doc=3529,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 3529, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3529)
    0.0024304248 = weight(_text_:s in 3529) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0024304248 = score(doc=3529,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.08408674 = fieldWeight in 3529, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3529)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    Describes three units of time helpful for understanding and evaluating classificatory structures: long time (versions and states of classification schemes), short time (the act of indexing as repeated ritual or form), and micro-time (where stages of the interpretation process of indexing are separated out and inventoried). Concludes with a short discussion of how time and the impermanence of classification also conjures up an artistic conceptualization of indexing, and briefly uses that to question the seemingly dominant understanding of classification practice as outcome of scientific management and assembly line thought.
    Pages
    S.223-228
    Type
    a
  3. Tennis, J.T.: Data collection for controlled vocabulary interoperability : Dublin core audience element (2003) 0.00 
    0.0012548991 = product of:
  0.0069019445 = sum of:
    0.0051659266 = weight(_text_:a in 1253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0051659266 = score(doc=1253,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 1253, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1253)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 1253) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=1253,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 1253, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1253)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    This paper outlines the assumptions, process and results of a pilot study of issues of interoperability among a set of seven existing controlled vocabulary schemes that make statements about the audience of an educational resource. The notion of audience for the study was defined in terms of the semantics of the Dublin Core metadata element of the same name: "A category of user for whom the resource is intended." The study used a data collection technique, card sorting, to see how nonexpert users sorted terms in the seven vocabularies into relationships and what their thought processes were in sorting these terms. The need for controlled vocabulary interoperability is a pressing concern for the education community as well as many others. In particular, the current study was informed by the need of the Dublin Core Education Working Group (www.dublin core.org/groups/education/) to explore the possibility of a high-level switching language in an application profile for the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) audience element. An abundance of educational resources exists, many of which are available in the networked environment. Yet, theie are various conceptualizations of the domain in the form of different controlled vocabularies that limit access. Controlled vocabulary interoperability would allow these different conceptualizations to remain intact, thereby serving local needs while allowing users to navigate across collections and exploiting the intellectual network of resources available.
    Source
    Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science. 29(2003) no.2, S.20-23
    Type
    a
  4. Tennis, J.T.: Experientialist epistemology and classification theory : embodied and dimensional classification (2005) 0.00 
    0.0012307836 = product of:
  0.0067693098 = sum of:
    0.0046860883 = weight(_text_:a in 5038) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0046860883 = score(doc=5038,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 5038, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5038)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 5038) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=5038,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 5038, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5038)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    What theoretical framework can help in building, maintaining and evaluating networked knowledge organization resources? Specifically, what theoretical framework makes sense of the semantic prowess of ontologies and peer-to-peer systems, and by extension aids in their building, maintenance, and evaluation? I posit that a theoretical work that weds both formal and associative (structurel and interpretive) aspects of knowledge organization systems provides that framework. Here I lay out the terms and the intellectual constructs that serve as the foundation for investigative work into experientialist classification theory, a theoretical framework of embodied, infrastructural, and reified knowledge organization. I build an the interpretive work of scholars in information studies, cognitive semantics, sociology, and science studies. With the terms and the framework in place, I then outline classification theory's critiques of classificatory structures. In order to address these critiques with an experientialist approach an experientialist semantics is offered as a design commitment for an example: metadata in peer-to-peer network knowledge organization structures.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 32(2005) no.2, S.79-92
    Type
    a
  5. Hauser, E.; Tennis, J.T.: Episemantics: aboutness as aroundness (2019) 0.00 
    0.001185225 = product of:
  0.006518737 = sum of:
    0.004782719 = weight(_text_:a in 5640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004782719 = score(doc=5640,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 5640, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5640)
    0.0017360178 = weight(_text_:s in 5640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0017360178 = score(doc=5640,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.060061958 = fieldWeight in 5640, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5640)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    Aboutness ranks amongst our field's greatest bugbears. What is a work about? How can this be known? This mirrors debates within the philosophy of language, where the concept of representation has similarly evaded satisfactory definition. This paper proposes that we abandon the strong sense of the word aboutness, which seems to promise some inherent relationship between work and subject, or, in philosophical terms, between word and world. Instead, we seek an etymological reset to the older sense of aboutness as "in the vicinity, nearby; in some place or various places nearby; all over a surface." To distinguish this sense in the context of information studies, we introduce the term episemantics. The authors have each independently applied this term in slightly different contexts and scales (Hauser 2018a; Tennis 2016), and this article presents a unified definition of the term and guidelines for applying it at the scale of both words and works. The resulting weak concept of aboutness is pragmatic, in Star's sense of a focus on consequences over antecedents, while reserving space for the critique and improvement of aboutness determinations within various contexts and research programs. The paper finishes with a discussion of the implication of the concept of episemantics and methodological possibilities it offers for knowledge organization research and practice. We draw inspiration from Melvil Dewey's use of physical aroundness in his first classification system and ask how aroundness might be more effectively operationalized in digital environments.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 46(2019) no.8, S.590-595
    Type
    a
  6. Tennis, J.T.; Sutton, S.A.: Extending the Simple Knowledge Organization System for concept management in vocabulary development applications (2008) 0.00 
    0.0011166352 = product of:
  0.006141493 = sum of:
    0.0040582716 = weight(_text_:a in 1337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0040582716 = score(doc=1337,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 1337, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1337)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 1337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=1337,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 1337, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1337)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Abstract
    In this article, we describe the development of an extension to the Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) to accommodate the needs of vocabulary development applications (VDA) managing metadata schemes and requiring close tracking of change to both those schemes and their member concepts. We take a neopragmatic epistemic stance in asserting the need for an entity in SKOS modeling to mediate between the abstract concept and the concrete scheme. While the SKOS model sufficiently describes entities for modeling the current state of a scheme in support of indexing and search on the Semantic Web, it lacks the expressive power to serve the needs of VDA needing to maintain scheme historical continuity. We demonstrate preliminarily that conceptualizations drawn from empirical work in modeling entities in the bibliographic universe, such as works, texts, and exemplars, can provide the basis for SKOS extension in ways that support more rigorous demands of capturing concept evolution in VDA.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 59(2008) no.1, S.25-37
    Type
    a
  7. Tennis, J.T.: Foundational, first-order, and second-order classification theory (2015) 0.00 
    8.047755E-4 = product of:
  0.004426265 = sum of:
    0.0023430442 = weight(_text_:a in 2204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0023430442 = score(doc=2204,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.07643694 = fieldWeight in 2204, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2204)
    0.0020832212 = weight(_text_:s in 2204) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0020832212 = score(doc=2204,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.028903782 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.072074346 = fieldWeight in 2204, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.0872376 = idf(docFreq=40523, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2204)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 42(2015) no.4, S.244-249
    Type
    a
  8. Zolyomi, A.; Tennis, J.T.: Autism prism : a domain analysis examining neurodiversity (2017) 0.00 
    6.0870964E-4 = product of:
  0.006695806 = sum of:
    0.006695806 = weight(_text_:a in 3864) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006695806 = score(doc=3864,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 3864, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3864)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)
    Abstract
    Autism is a complex neurological phenomenon that affects our society on individual, community, and cultural levels. There is an ongoing dialog between the medical, scientific and autism communities that critiques and molds the meaning of autism. The prevailing social model perspective, the neurodiversity paradigm, views autism as a natural variation in human neurology. Towards the goal of crystallizing the various facets of autism, this paper conducts a domain analysis of neurodiversity. Through this analysis, we explore the dynamics between diagnosis, identity, power, and inclusion.
    Type
    a
  9. Tennis, J.T.: Social tagging and the next steps for indexing (2006) 0.00 
    4.2600805E-4 = product of:
  0.0046860883 = sum of:
    0.0046860883 = weight(_text_:a in 570) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0046860883 = score(doc=570,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 570, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=570)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)
    Type
    a
  10. Tennis, J.T.: Versioning concept schemes for persistent retrieval (2006) 0.00 
    4.0164427E-4 = product of:
  0.0044180867 = sum of:
    0.0044180867 = weight(_text_:a in 1956) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0044180867 = score(doc=1956,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.030653298 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.026584605 = queryNorm
        0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 1956, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1956)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)
    Abstract
    Things change. Words change, meaning changes and use changes both words and meaning. In information access systems this means concept schemes such as thesauri or classification schemes change. They always have. Concept schemes that have survived have evolved over time, moving from one version, often called an edition, to the next. If we want to manage how words and meanings - and as a consequence use - change in an effective manner, and if we want to be able to search across versions of concept schemes, we have to track these changes. This paper explores how we might expand SKOS, a World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) draft recommendation in order to do that kind of tracking. The Simple Knowledge Organization System (SKOS) Core Guide is sponsored by the Semantic Web Best Practices and Deployment Working Group. The second draft, edited by Alistair Miles and Dan Brickley, was issued in November 2005. SKOS is a "model for expressing the basic structure and content of concept schemes such as thesauri, classification schemes, subject heading lists, taxonomies, folksonomies, other types of controlled vocabulary and also concept schemes embedded in glossaries and terminologies" in RDF. How SKOS handles version in concept schemes is an open issue. The current draft guide suggests using OWL and DCTERMS as mechanisms for concept scheme revision. As it stands an editor of a concept scheme can make notes or declare in OWL that more than one version exists. This paper adds to the SKOS Core by introducing a tracking system for changes in concept schemes. We call this tracking system vocabulary ontogeny. Ontogeny is a biological term for the development of an organism during its lifetime. Here we use the ontogeny metaphor to describe how vocabularies change over their lifetime. Our purpose here is to create a conceptual mechanism that will track these changes and in so doing enhance information retrieval and prevent document loss through versioning, thereby enabling persistent retrieval.
    Type
    a

Authors

Years

Types

  • a 30
  • el 2
  • More… Less…

Themes