Search (85 results, page 1 of 5)

0.024449361 = product of:
  0.05704851 = sum of:
    0.015873993 = product of:
      0.031747986 = sum of:
        0.031747986 = weight(_text_:p in 6963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031747986 = score(doc=6963,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13319843 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.23835106 = fieldWeight in 6963, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6963)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.03464444 = weight(_text_:g in 6963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03464444 = score(doc=6963,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13914184 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.24898648 = fieldWeight in 6963, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6963)
    0.006530081 = weight(_text_:a in 6963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006530081 = score(doc=6963,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 6963, 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=6963)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)

Abstract

Information science has for a long time been drawing on the knowledge produced in psychology and related fields. This is reasonable, for the central issue in information science concerns individual users navigating information spaces such as libraries, databases, and the Internet, Thus, informations seeking is the fundamental problem in information science, while other problems, such as document representation, are subordinate. This book proposes a general theory of information seeking as a theoretical basis for information science

Content

Introduction - information seeking and subject representation - subject searching and subject representation data - subject analysis and knowledge organization - the concept of subject or subject matter and basic epistemological positions - methodological consequences for information science - science, discipline, and subject field as a framework for information seeking - information needs and cognitive and scientific development

Footnote

Rez. in: nfd 49(1998) H.1, S.59-60 (G. Wersig), Erwiderung des Autors darauf in nfd: 49(1998) H.2, S.122-126; JASIS 49(1998) no.11, S.1043 (C. Chen); College and research libraries 59(1998) no.3, S.287-288 (P. Wilson)

0.022326874 = product of:
  0.05209604 = sum of:
    0.030719671 = weight(_text_:u in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030719671 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.121304214 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.25324488 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
    0.0038092136 = weight(_text_:a in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0038092136 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.089176424 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
    0.017567152 = product of:
      0.035134304 = sum of:
        0.035134304 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035134304 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12972787 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)

Pages

S.22-36

Source

Theorie, Semantik und Organisation von Wissen: Proceedings der 13. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und dem 13. Internationalen Symposium der Informationswissenschaft der Higher Education Association for Information Science (HI) Potsdam (19.-20.03.2013): 'Theory, Information and Organization of Knowledge' / Proceedings der 14. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und Natural Language & Information Systems (NLDB) Passau (16.06.2015): 'Lexical Resources for Knowledge Organization' / Proceedings des Workshops der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) auf der SEMANTICS Leipzig (1.09.2014): 'Knowledge Organization and Semantic Web' / Proceedings des Workshops der Polnischen und Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) Cottbus (29.-30.09.2011): 'Economics of Knowledge Production and Organization'. Hrsg. von W. Babik, H.P. Ohly u. K. Weber

Type

a

0.021662561 = product of:
  0.07581896 = sum of:
    0.06928888 = weight(_text_:g in 403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06928888 = score(doc=403,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13914184 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.49797297 = fieldWeight in 403, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.7559474 = idf(docFreq=2809, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=403)
    0.006530081 = weight(_text_:a in 403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006530081 = score(doc=403,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 403, 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=403)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Erwiderung auf die Rezension des gleichbetitelten Buches des Autors durch G. Wersig in nfd 49(1998) H.1

Type

a

0.01768492 = product of:
  0.06189722 = sum of:
    0.05266229 = weight(_text_:u in 1318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05266229 = score(doc=1318,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.121304214 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.43413407 = fieldWeight in 1318, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1318)
    0.0092349285 = weight(_text_:a in 1318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0092349285 = score(doc=1318,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.2161963 = fieldWeight in 1318, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1318)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Source

Theories of information, communication and knowledge : a multidisciplinary approach. Eds.: F. Ibekwe-SanJuan u. T.M. Dousa

Type

a

0.014093423 = product of:
  0.04932698 = sum of:
    0.043885246 = weight(_text_:u in 3025) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043885246 = score(doc=3025,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.121304214 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.3617784 = fieldWeight in 3025, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3025)
    0.0054417336 = weight(_text_:a in 3025) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0054417336 = score(doc=3025,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3025, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3025)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Source

Tendencias de investigación en organización del conocimient: IV Cologuio International de Ciencas de la Documentación , VI Congreso del Capitulo Espanol de ISKO = Trends in knowledge organization research. Eds.: J.A. Frias u. C. Travieso

Type

a

0.013679375 = product of:
  0.03191854 = sum of:
    0.018707681 = product of:
      0.037415363 = sum of:
        0.037415363 = weight(_text_:p in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037415363 = score(doc=2748,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.13319843 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.28089944 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.006936877 = weight(_text_:a in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006936877 = score(doc=2748,freq=52.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.16239727 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
          7.2111025 = tf(freq=52.0), with freq of:
            52.0 = termFreq=52.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
    0.006273983 = product of:
      0.012547966 = sum of:
        0.012547966 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012547966 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12972787 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)

Content

"This letter considers some main arguments in Professor Bates' article (2008), which is part of our former debate (Bates, 2005,2006; Hjoerland, 2007). Bates (2008) does not write much to restate or enlarge on her theoretical position but is mostly arguing about what she claims Hjorland (2007) ignored or misinterpreted in her two articles. Bates (2008, p. 842) wrote that my arguments did not reflect "a standard of coherence, consistency, and logic that is expected of an argument presented in a scientific journal." My argumentation below will refute this statement. This controversy is whether information should be understood as a subjective phenomenon (alone), as an objective phenomenon (alone), or as a combined objective and a subjective phenomenon ("having it both ways"). Bates (2006) defined "information" (sometimes, e.g., termed "information 1," p. 1042) as an objective phenomenon and "information 2" as a subjective phenomenon. However, sometimes the term "information" is also used as a synonym for "information 2," e.g., "the term information is understood to refer to one or both senses" (p. 1042). Thus, Professor Bates is not consistent in using the terminology that she herself introduces, and confusion in this controversy may be caused by Professor Bates' ambiguity in her use of the term "information." Bates (2006, p. 1033) defined information as an objective phenomenon by joining a definition by Edwin Parker: "Information is the pattern of organization of matter and energy." The argument in Hjoerland (2007) is, by contrast, that information should be understood as a subjective phenomenon all the way down: That neither the objective definition of information nor "having it both ways" is fruitful. This is expressed, for example, by joining Karpatschof's (2000) definition of information as a physical signal relative to a certain release mechanism, which implies that information is not something objective that can be understood independently of an observer or independently of other kinds of mechanism that are programmed to be sensitive to specific attributes of a signal: There are many differences in the world, and each of them is potentially informative in given situations. Regarding Parker's definition, "patterns of organization of matter and energy" are no more than that until they inform somebody about something. When they inform somebody about something, they may be considered information. The following quote is part of the argumentation in Bates (2008): "He contrasts my definition of information as 'observer-independent' with his position that information is 'situational' and adds a list of respected names on the situational side (Hjoerland, 2007, p. 1448). What this sentence, and much of the remainder of his argument, ignores is the fact that my approach accounts for both an observer-independent and a contextual, situational sense of information." Yes, it is correct that I mostly concentrated on refuting Bates' objective definition of information. It is as if Bates expects an overall appraisal of her work rather than providing a specific analysis of the points on which there are disagreements. I see Bates' "having it both ways": a symptom of inconsistence in argumentation.
Bates (2008, p. 843) further writes about her definition of information: "This is the objectivist foundation, the rock bottom minimum of the meaning of information; it informs both articles throughout." This is exactly the focus of my disagreement. If we take a word in a language, it is understood as both being a "pattern of organization of matter and energy" (e.g., a sound) and carrying meaning. But the relation between the physical sign and its meaning is considered an arbitrary relation in linguistics. Any physical material has the potential of carrying any meaning and to inform somebody. The physical stuff in itself is not information until it is used as a sign. An important issue in this debate is whether Bates' examples demonstrate the usefulness of her own position as opposed to mine. Her example about information seeking concerning navigation and how "the very layout of the ship and the design of the bridge promoted the smooth flow of information from the exterior of the ship to the crew and among the crewmembers" (Bates, 2006, pp. 1042-1043) does not justify Bates' definition of information as an objective phenomenon. The design is made for a purpose, and this purpose determines how information should be defined in this context. Bates' view on "curatorial sciences" (2006, p. 1043) is close to Hjorland's suggestions (2000) about "memory institutions," which is based on the subjective understanding of information. However, she does not relate to this proposal, and she does not argue how the objective understanding of information is related to this example. I therefore conclude that Bates' practical examples do not support her objective definition of information, nor do they support her "having it both ways." Finally, I exemplify the consequences of my understanding of information by showing how an archaeologist and a geologist might represent the same stone differently in information systems. Bates (2008, p. 843) writes about this example: "This position is completely consistent with mine." However, this "consistency" was not recognized by Bates until I published my objections and, therefore, this is an indication that my criticism was needed. I certainly share Professor Bates (2008) advice to read her original articles: They contain much important stuff. I just recommend that the reader ignore the parts that argue about information being an objective phenomenon."
References Bates, M.J. (2005). Information and knowledge: An evolutionary framework for information science. Information Research, 10(4), paper 239. Available at http://InformationR.net/ir/10-4/paper239.html. Bates, M.J. (2006). Fundamental forms of information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), 1033-1045. Bates, M.J. (2008). Hjorland's critique of Bates' work on defining information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(5), 842-844. Hjoerland, B. (2000). Documents, memory institutions, and information science. Journal of Documentation, 56, 27-41. Hjoerland, B. (2007). Information: Objective or subjective-situational? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(10), 1448-1456. Karpatschof, B. (2000). Human activity. Contributions to the anthropological sciences from a perspective of activity theory. Copenhagen: Dansk Psykologisk Forlag. Retrieved May 14, 2007, from http://informationr.net/ir/ 12-3/Karpatschof/Karp00.html.

Date

22. 3.2009 18:13:27

Type

a

0.009138961 = product of:
  0.031986363 = sum of:
    0.026331145 = weight(_text_:u in 639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026331145 = score(doc=639,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.121304214 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.21706703 = fieldWeight in 639, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=639)
    0.005655216 = weight(_text_:a in 639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.005655216 = score(doc=639,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.13239266 = fieldWeight in 639, 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=639)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Are the terms information organization (IO), organization of information (OI) and information architecture (IA) synonyms for knowledge organization (KO)? This study uses bibliometric methods, among others, to determine some relations between these terms and their meanings. Apparently the data shows that these terms should not be considered synonyms because each of the terms IO, OI, IA and KO produce a different set of high ranked authors, journals and papers. In many cases the terms are, however, used interchangeably (and thus indicating synonymity) and it is argued that the underlying theoretical principles are identical but that the different terms tend to be applied in different contexts: KO in the library context; IA in the web-context and IO and OI in more unspecified ways.

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

Type

a

0.008173532 = product of:
  0.02860736 = sum of:
    0.021942623 = weight(_text_:u in 157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021942623 = score(doc=157,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.121304214 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.1808892 = fieldWeight in 157, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2744443 = idf(docFreq=4547, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=157)
    0.0066647357 = weight(_text_:a in 157) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066647357 = score(doc=157,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 157, 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=157)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Bradfordrsquos law of scattering is said to be about subject scattering in information sources. However, in spite of a corpus of writings about the meaning of the word ldquosubjectrdquo and equivalent terms such as ldquoaboutnessrdquo or ldquotopicalityrdquo, the meaning of ldquosubjectrdquo has never been explicitly addressed in relation to Bradfordrsquos law. This paper introduces a distinction between Lexical scattering, Semantic scattering, and Subject scattering. Neither Bradford himself nor any follower has explicitly considered the differences between these three and the implications for the practical applications of Bradfordrsquos law. Traditionally, Bradfordrsquos law has been seen as a neutral and objective tool for the selection of the most central information sources in a field. However, it is hard to find actual reports that describe how Bradfordrsquos law has been applied in practical library and information services. Theoretical as well as historical evidence suggest that the selection of journals based on Bradford-distributions tend to favorite dominant theories and views while suppressing views other than the mainstream at a given time.

Source

Context: nature, impact and role. 5th International Conference an Conceptions of Library and Information Sciences, CoLIS 2005 Glasgow, UK, June 2005. Ed. by F. Crestani u. I. Ruthven

Type

a

0.00719588 = product of:
  0.02518558 = sum of:
    0.0076184273 = weight(_text_:a in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0076184273 = score(doc=5237,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.17835285 = fieldWeight in 5237, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5237)
    0.017567152 = product of:
      0.035134304 = sum of:
        0.035134304 = weight(_text_:22 in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035134304 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12972787 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5237, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5237)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Hjorland and Christensen provide an analyzed example in order to clarify their views on relevance. A physician's information seeking focus in dealing with mental illness is seen as largely determined by his social cognitive state, with complexity increasing as the individual's understanding of the topic deviates from mainstream thinking. The physician's viewpoint on the disease will influence terminology utilized, and an eclectic attitude toward the disease will result in more broad criteria of relevance. Relevance is seen as a tool toward meeting an individual goal.

Date

21. 7.2006 14:11:22

Type

a

0.006587212 = product of:
  0.02305524 = sum of:
    0.007997682 = weight(_text_:a in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007997682 = score(doc=4359,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.18723148 = fieldWeight in 4359, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4359)
    0.015057558 = product of:
      0.030115116 = sum of:
        0.030115116 = weight(_text_:22 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030115116 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12972787 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4359, 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=4359)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

A recent study in information science (IS), raises important issues concerning the value of human indexing and basic theories of indexing and information retrieval, as well as the use of quantitative and qualitative approaches in IS and the underlying theories of knowledge informing the field. The present article uses L&E as the point of departure for demonstrating in what way more social and interpretative understandings may provide fruitful improvements for research in indexing, knowledge organization, and information retrieval. The artcle is motivated by the observation that philosophical contributions tend to be ignored in IS if they are not directly formed as criticisms or invitations to dialogs. It is part of the author's ongoing publication of articles about philosophical issues in IS and it is intended to be followed by analyzes of other examples of contributions to core issues in IS. Although it is formulated as a criticism of a specific paper, it should be seen as part of a general discussion of the philosophical foundation of IS and as a support to the emerging social paradigm in this field.

Date

17. 3.2011 19:22:55

Type

a

0.0056837327 = product of:
  0.019893063 = sum of:
    0.013228328 = product of:
      0.026456656 = sum of:
        0.026456656 = weight(_text_:p in 2033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026456656 = score(doc=2033,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13319843 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.19862589 = fieldWeight in 2033, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2033)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.0066647357 = weight(_text_:a in 2033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0066647357 = score(doc=2033,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.15602624 = fieldWeight in 2033, 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=2033)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Much of the literature of information science and knowledge organization has accepted and built upon Elaine Svenonius's (2004) claim that "paradigmatic relationships are those that are context-free, definitional, and true in all possible worlds" (p. 583). At the same time, the literature demonstrates a common understanding that paradigmatic relations are the kinds of semantic relations used in thesauri and other knowledge organization systems (including equivalence relations, hierarchical relations, and associative relations). This understanding is problematic and harmful because it directs attention away from the empirical and contextual basis for knowledge-organizing systems. Whether A is a kind of X is certainly not context-free and definitional in empirical sciences or in much everyday information. Semantic relations are theory-dependent and, in biology, for example, a scientific revolution has taken place in which many relations have changed following the new taxonomic paradigm named "cladism." This biological example is not an exception, but the norm. Semantic relations including paradigmatic relations are not a priori but are dependent on subject knowledge, scientific findings, and paradigms. As long as information scientists and knowledge organizers isolate themselves from subject knowledge, knowledge organization cannot possibly progress.

Type

a

0.005641916 = product of:
  0.019746704 = sum of:
    0.0071987375 = weight(_text_:a in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0071987375 = score(doc=1096,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 1096, 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=1096)
    0.012547966 = product of:
      0.025095932 = sum of:
        0.025095932 = weight(_text_:22 in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025095932 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12972787 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1096, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1096)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

A table of contents (ToC) is a kind of document representation as well as a paratext and a kind of finding device to the document it represents. TOCs are very common in books and some other kinds of documents, but not in all kinds. This article discusses the definition and functions of ToC, normative guidelines for their design, and the history and forms of ToC in different kinds of documents and media. A main part of the article is about the role of ToC in information searching, in current awareness services and as items added to bibliographical records. The introduction and the conclusion focus on the core theoretical issues concerning ToCs. Should they be document-oriented or request-oriented, neutral, or policy-oriented, objective, or subjective? It is concluded that because of the special functions of ToCs, the arguments for the request-oriented (policy-oriented, subjective) view are weaker than they are in relation to indexing and knowledge organization in general. Apart from level of granularity, the evaluation of a ToC is difficult to separate from the evaluation of the structuring and naming of the elements of the structure of the document it represents.

Date

18.11.2023 13:47:22

Type

a

0.0051399143 = product of:
  0.017989699 = sum of:
    0.0054417336 = weight(_text_:a in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0054417336 = score(doc=1398,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 1398, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1398)
    0.012547966 = product of:
      0.025095932 = sum of:
        0.025095932 = weight(_text_:22 in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025095932 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12972787 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1398, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1398)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

This paper considers classical bibliographic databases based on the Boolean retrieval model (for example MEDLINE and PsycInfo). This model is challenged by modern search engines and information retrieval (IR) researchers, who often consider Boolean retrieval as a less efficient approach. This speech examines this claim and argues for the continued value of Boolean systems, which implies two further issues: (1) the important role of human expertise in searching (expert searchers and "information literacy") and (2) the role of knowledge organization (KO) in the design and use of classical databases, including controlled vocabularies and human indexing. An underlying issue is the kind of retrieval system for which one should aim. It is suggested that Julian Warner's (2010) differentiation between the computer science traditions, aiming at automatically transforming queries into (ranked) sets of relevant documents, and an older library-orientated tradition aiming at increasing the "selection power" of users seems important. The Boolean retrieval model is important in order to provide users with the power to make informed searches and have full control over what is found and what is not found. These issues may also have important implications for the maintenance of information science and KO as research fields as well as for the information profession as a profession in its own right.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

Type

a

0.0049316133 = product of:
  0.017260646 = sum of:
    0.00471268 = weight(_text_:a in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00471268 = score(doc=629,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.11032722 = fieldWeight in 629, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=629)
    0.012547966 = product of:
      0.025095932 = sum of:
        0.025095932 = weight(_text_:22 in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025095932 = score(doc=629,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12972787 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 629, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=629)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

In the 1970s and 1980s, forms of user-based and cognitive approaches to knowledge organization came to the forefront as part of the overall development in library and information science and in the broader society. The specific nature of user-based approaches is their basis in the empirical studies of users or the principle that users need to be involved in the construction of knowledge organization systems. It might seem obvious that user-friendly systems should be designed on user studies or user involvement, but extremely successful systems such as Apple's iPhone, Dialog's search system and Google's PageRank are not based on the empirical studies of users. In knowledge organization, the Book House System is one example of a system based on user studies. In cognitive science the important WordNet database is claimed to be based on psychological research. This article considers such examples. The role of the user is often confused with the role of subjectivity. Knowledge organization systems cannot be objective and must therefore, by implication, be based on some kind of subjectivity. This subjectivity should, however, be derived from collective views in discourse communities rather than be derived from studies of individuals or from the study ofabstract minds.

Date

22. 2.2013 11:49:13

Type

a

0.004782652 = product of:
  0.01673928 = sum of:
    0.010582662 = product of:
      0.021165324 = sum of:
        0.021165324 = weight(_text_:p in 2760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021165324 = score(doc=2760,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13319843 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03704574 = queryNorm
            0.15890071 = fieldWeight in 2760, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5955126 = idf(docFreq=3298, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2760)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.006156619 = weight(_text_:a in 2760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006156619 = score(doc=2760,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 2760, 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=2760)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Special classifications have been somewhat neglected in KO compared to general classifications. The methodology of constructing special classifications is important, however, also for the methodology of constructing general classification schemes. The methodology of constructing special classifications can be regarded as one among about a dozen approaches to domain analysis. The methodology of (special) classification in LIS has been dominated by the rationalistic facet-analytic tradition, which, however, neglects the question of the empirical basis of classification. The empirical basis is much better grasped by, for example, bibliometric methods. Even the combination of rational and empirical methods is insufficient. This presentation will provide evidence for the necessity of historical and pragmatic methods for the methodology of classification and will point to the necessity of analyzing "paradigms". The presentation covers the methods of constructing classifications from Ranganathan to the design of ontologies in computer science and further to the recent "paradigm shift" in classification research. 1. Introduction Classification of a subject field is one among about eleven approaches to analyzing a domain that are specific for information science and in my opinion define the special competencies of information specialists (Hjoerland, 2002a). Classification and knowledge organization are commonly regarded as core qualifications of librarians and information specialists. Seen from this perspective one expects a firm methodological basis for the field. This paper tries to explore the state-of-the-art conceming the methodology of classification. 2. Classification: Science or non-science? As it is part of the curriculum at universities and subject in scientific journals and conferences like ISKO, orte expects classification/knowledge organization to be a scientific or scholarly activity and a scientific field. However, very often when information specialists classify or index documents and when they revise classification system, the methods seem to be rather ad hoc. Research libraries or scientific databases may employ people with adequate subject knowledge. When information scientists construct or evaluate systems, they very often elicit the knowledge from "experts" (Hjorland, 2002b, p. 260). Mostly no specific arguments are provided for the specific decisions in these processes.

Type

a

0.0016157761 = product of:
  0.011310432 = sum of:
    0.011310432 = weight(_text_:a in 3967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011310432 = score(doc=3967,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.26478532 = fieldWeight in 3967, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3967)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Type

a

0.0014014608 = product of:
  0.009810225 = sum of:
    0.009810225 = weight(_text_:a in 2915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009810225 = score(doc=2915,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.22966442 = fieldWeight in 2915, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2915)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The introduction (1.0) of this article considers the status of the thesaurus within LIS and asks about the future prospect for thesauri. The main following points are: (2.0) Any knowledge organization system (KOS) is today threatened by Google-like systems, and it is therefore important to consider if there still is a need for knowledge organization (KO) in the traditional sense. (3.0) A thesaurus is a somewhat reduced form of KOS compared to, for example, an ontology, and its "bundling" and restricted number of semantic relations has never been justified theoretically or empirically. Which semantic relations are most fruitful for a given task is thus an open question, and different domains may need different kinds of KOS including different sets of relations between terms. (4.0) A KOS is a controlled vocabulary (CV) and should not be considered a "perfect language" (Eco 1995) that is simply able to remove the ambiguity of natural language; rather much ambiguity in language represents a battle between many "voices" (Bakhtin 1981) or "paradigms" (Kuhn 1962). In this perspective, a specific KOS, e.g. a specific thesaurus, is just one "voice" among many voices, and that voice has to demonstrate its authority and utility. It is concluded (5.0) that the traditional thesaurus does not have a place in modern information retrieval, but that more flexible semantic tools based on proper studies of domains will always be important.

Type

a

0.00134648 = product of:
  0.00942536 = sum of:
    0.00942536 = weight(_text_:a in 3006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00942536 = score(doc=3006,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.22065444 = fieldWeight in 3006, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3006)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Footnote

Bezugnahme auf: Beghtol, C.: Response to Hjoerland and Nicolaisen. In: Knowledge organization. 31(2004) no.1, S.62-63 sowie: Hjoerland, B., J. Nicolaisen: Scientific and scholarly classifications are not "naïve": a comment to Beghtol (2003). In: Knowledge organization. 31(2004) no.1, S.55-61.

Type

a

0.00134648 = product of:
  0.00942536 = sum of:
    0.00942536 = weight(_text_:a in 1892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00942536 = score(doc=1892,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.22065444 = fieldWeight in 1892, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1892)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Purpose - To suggest that a theory of classification for information retrieval (IR), asked for by Spärck Jones in a 1970 paper, presupposes a full implementation of a pragmatic understanding. Part of the Journal of Documentation celebration, "60 years of the best in information research". Design/methodology/approach - Literature-based conceptual analysis, taking Sparck Jones as its starting-point. Analysis involves distinctions between "positivism" and "pragmatism" and "classical" versus Kuhnian understandings of concepts. Findings - Classification, both manual and automatic, for retrieval benefits from drawing upon a combination of qualitative and quantitative techniques, a consideration of theories of meaning, and the adding of top-down approaches to IR in which divisions of labour, domains, traditions, genres, document architectures etc. are included as analytical elements and in which specific IR algorithms are based on the examination of specific literatures. Introduces an example illustrating the consequences of a full implementation of a pragmatist understanding when handling homonyms. Practical implications - Outlines how to classify from a pragmatic-philosophical point of view. Originality/value - Provides, emphasizing a pragmatic understanding, insights of importance to classification for retrieval, both manual and automatic. - Vgl. auch: Szostak, R.: Classification, interdisciplinarity, and the study of science. In: Journal of documentation. 64(2008) no.3, S.319-332.

Type

a

0.0013329472 = product of:
  0.009330629 = sum of:
    0.009330629 = weight(_text_:a in 310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009330629 = score(doc=310,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.04271548 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03704574 = queryNorm
        0.21843673 = fieldWeight in 310, 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=310)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Recently, a new book on knowledge organization has been published by Greenwood Press. The title is 'Information seeking and subject representation: an activity-theoretical approach to information science'. This book presents a new general theory for information science and knowledge organization, based on a theory of information seeking. The author is Dr. Birger Hjørland, Royal School of Library and Information Science. In 1994, he presented his work on theory for KO at the 3rd International ISKO conference in Copenhagen. The book aims to provide both a new understanding for the foundations of information science and knowledge organization, and to provide new directions in research and teaching within these fields. KO (Hanne Albrechtsen) has interviewed Birger HjÝrland in Copenhagen about his views on knowledge organization and subject representation

Type

a