Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

0.01843649 = product of:
  0.03687298 = sum of:
    0.03687298 = product of:
      0.07374596 = sum of:
        0.07374596 = weight(_text_:2003 in 5631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07374596 = score(doc=5631,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.19453894 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044824958 = queryNorm
            0.3790807 = fieldWeight in 5631, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5631)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 35(2003) nos.3/4, S.xx-xx

Year

2003

0.014280844 = product of:
  0.028561687 = sum of:
    0.028561687 = product of:
      0.057123374 = sum of:
        0.057123374 = weight(_text_:2003 in 5652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057123374 = score(doc=5652,freq=3.0), product of:
            0.19453894 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044824958 = queryNorm
            0.29363465 = fieldWeight in 5652, product of:
              1.7320508 = tf(freq=3.0), with freq of:
                3.0 = termFreq=3.0
              4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5652)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Year

2003

0.01166026 = product of:
  0.02332052 = sum of:
    0.02332052 = product of:
      0.04664104 = sum of:
        0.04664104 = weight(_text_:2003 in 2333) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04664104 = score(doc=2333,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19453894 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044824958 = queryNorm
            0.2397517 = fieldWeight in 2333, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2333)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The 10th International ISKO Conference is now history, and it was a dynamic bit of history at that. Knowledge organization (the domain) is lively and engaged and engaging, and all of us who work in the domain are in a good spot to benefit from the new trajectories provided by the scholars who brought their research forward this year. As is our custom in this journal, I will leave it to the Classification editor to prepare a full report on the conference. But the Proceedings volume (Arsenault and Tennis 2008), as usual, is a rich resource for analysis of the domain at this particular moment in time. By studying the contents, and in particular by applying bibliometric techniques, we can gain useful insight into the direction of the evolution of knowledge organization. Hjørland (2002) includes bibliometric techniques in his list of eleven approaches to domain analysis because, as he says (p. 436), "it is empirical and based on detailed analysis of connections between individual documents." With reference (and due deference) to White's (2003) analysis of authors as citers, I hereby present this brief analysis of what one might find on the bookshelves of this year's ISKO authors.

0.011424675 = product of:
  0.02284935 = sum of:
    0.02284935 = product of:
      0.0456987 = sum of:
        0.0456987 = weight(_text_:2003 in 2772) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0456987 = score(doc=2772,freq=3.0), product of:
            0.19453894 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044824958 = queryNorm
            0.23490772 = fieldWeight in 2772, product of:
              1.7320508 = tf(freq=3.0), with freq of:
                3.0 = termFreq=3.0
              4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2772)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Year

2003

0.00583013 = product of:
  0.01166026 = sum of:
    0.01166026 = product of:
      0.02332052 = sum of:
        0.02332052 = weight(_text_:2003 in 409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02332052 = score(doc=409,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19453894 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044824958 = queryNorm
            0.11987585 = fieldWeight in 409, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.339969 = idf(docFreq=1566, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=409)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

"Actions have consequences, and this is certainly true of knowledge organization. One reason our colleague Birger Hjoerland (1998) urges epistemological analysis for the problems of information science is that resources might well serve many different purposes for different users, and thus different user groups might have different epistemological relationships with resources. There is a difference between consulting a dictionary for a definition, reading a text for comprehension to increase your knowledge base, reading for pleasure (which, evidently boosts certain endorphins), and synthesizing a scientific report to generate an hypothesis, just to generate a few scenarios. The only commonality in that list is the consultation of a resource. In each case the purpose dictates the activity and is reliant upon a different epistemological aim. No online source of facts is going to suffice if I want something to read that will give me pleasure; no catalog of fine literature is sufficient for the extraction of scientific theory. Hjoerland also suggests that the names we give - to documents, to categories, even to activities - embodies the action of naming, and thereby also the action of facilitating or obfuscating the use of named resources (Hjoerland 2003, 98). Terminology cannot be neutral because the very selection of terms as names either provides a pathway to understanding or a barrier to usage, depending on the epistemological perspective of the user group. I won't go looking for Miss Marple in your dictionary if you call it a dictionary, even though it might contain a perfectly fine list of motives for murder. Likewise, as an information scientist I am not likely to look for research anywhere except in a database that purports to contain peer-reviewed scientific literature. Names have power, and the action of naming is powerful too. We in knowledge organization need to be aware that no matter how elegant our science, the actions based on our research have consequences. A model generated empirically might make an excellent explanation of a specific reality, but if it migrates into the structure of a system for knowledge organization it has the power to help or hinder assignment to categories, not to mention retrieval from those categories.

0.003795727 = product of:
  0.007591454 = sum of:
    0.007591454 = product of:
      0.015182908 = sum of:
        0.015182908 = weight(_text_:22 in 1919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015182908 = score(doc=1919,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15696937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.044824958 = queryNorm
            0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 1919, 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=1919)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

12. 6.2008 20:18:22