Search (28 results, page 1 of 2)

0.007095774 = product of:
  0.03547887 = sum of:
    0.03547887 = product of:
      0.07095774 = sum of:
        0.07095774 = weight(_text_:etc in 2131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07095774 = score(doc=2131,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19761753 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.35906604 = fieldWeight in 2131, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2131)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Knowledge Organization (KO) is about activities such as document description, indexing and classification performed in libraries, databases, archives etc. These activities are done by librarians, archivists, subject specialists as well as by computer algorithms. KO as a field of study is concerned with the nature and quality of such knowledge organizing processes (KOP) as well as the knowledge organizing systems (KOS) used to organize documents, document representations and concepts. There exist different historical and theoretical approaches to and theories about KO, which are related to different views of knowledge, cognition, language, and social organization. Each of these approaches tends to answer the question: "What is knowledge organization?" differently. LIS professionals have often concentrated on applying new technology and standards, and may not have seen their work as involving interpretation and analysis of meaning. That is why library classification has been criticized for a lack of substantive intellectual content. Traditional human-based activities are increasingly challenged by computer-based retrieval techniques. It is appropriate to investigate the relative contributions of different approaches; the current challenges make it imperative to reconsider this understanding. This paper offers an understanding of KO based on an explicit theory of knowledge.

0.0059131454 = product of:
  0.029565725 = sum of:
    0.029565725 = product of:
      0.05913145 = sum of:
        0.05913145 = weight(_text_:etc in 1892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05913145 = score(doc=1892,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.19761753 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.2992217 = fieldWeight in 1892, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.4164915 = idf(docFreq=533, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1892)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.004855863 = product of:
  0.024279313 = sum of:
    0.024279313 = product of:
      0.048558626 = sum of:
        0.048558626 = weight(_text_:problems in 1980) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048558626 = score(doc=1980,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.322459 = fieldWeight in 1980, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1980)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

The aim of this chapter is to demonstrate that semantic issues underlie all research questions within Library and Information Science (LIS, or, as hereafter, IS) and, in particular, the subfield known as Knowledge Organization (KO). Further, it seeks to show that semantics is a field influenced by conflicting views and discusses why it is important to argue for the most fruitful one of these. Moreover, the chapter demonstrates that IS has not yet addressed semantic problems in systematic fashion and examines why the field is very fragmented and without a proper theoretical basis. The focus here is on broad interdisciplinary issues and the long-term perspective. The theoretical problems involving semantics and concepts are very complicated. Therefore, this chapter starts by considering tools developed in KO for information retrieval (IR) as basically semantic tools. In this way, it establishes a specific IS focus on the relation between KO and semantics. It is well known that thesauri consist of a selection of concepts supplemented with information about their semantic relations (such as generic relations or "associative relations"). Some words in thesauri are "preferred terms" (descriptors), whereas others are "lead-in terms." The descriptors represent concepts. The difference between "a word" and "a concept" is that different words may have the same meaning and similar words may have different meanings, whereas one concept expresses one meaning.

0.0048070587 = product of:
  0.024035294 = sum of:
    0.024035294 = product of:
      0.048070587 = sum of:
        0.048070587 = weight(_text_:problems in 4530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048070587 = score(doc=4530,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.31921813 = fieldWeight in 4530, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4530)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This paper investigates the problem of the labelling of the library, documentation and information field with particular emphasis on the terms 'information' and 'document'. What influences introduced the concept of 'information' into the library field in the middle of the 20th century? What kind of theoretical orientation have dominated the field, and how are these orientations linked to epistemological assumptions? What is the implication of the recent influence of socially oriented epistemologies for such basic concepts in IS as 'information' and 'document'? The article explores these problems and advocates an approach with emphasis on documents and on the concept 'memory institution' as generic term for the central object of study

0.0048070587 = product of:
  0.024035294 = sum of:
    0.024035294 = product of:
      0.048070587 = sum of:
        0.048070587 = weight(_text_:problems in 2973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.048070587 = score(doc=2973,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.31921813 = fieldWeight in 2973, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2973)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In spring 2002 I started teaching Knowledge Organization (KO) at the new master education at The Royal School of Library and Information Science in Copenhagen (MS RSLIS). I began collecting information about KO as support for my own teaching and research. In the beginning I made the information available to the student through a password protected system "SiteScape". This site was a great success, but I encountered problems in transferring the system for new classes the following years. Therefore I have now decided to make it public on the www and to protect only information that should not be made public. References freely available in electronic form are given an URL (if known).

0.0041203364 = product of:
  0.02060168 = sum of:
    0.02060168 = product of:
      0.04120336 = sum of:
        0.04120336 = weight(_text_:problems in 649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04120336 = score(doc=649,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.27361554 = fieldWeight in 649, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=649)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Information science (IS) is concerned with the searching and retrieval of text and other information (IR), mostly in electronic databases and on the Internet. Such databases contain fulltext (or other kinds of documents, e.g. pictures) and/or document representations and/or different kinds of 'value added information'. The core theoretical problems for IS is related to the determination of the usefulness of different 'subject access points' in electronic databases. This problem is again related to theories of meaning and semantics. This paper outlines some important principles in the design of documents done in the field of 'composition studies'. It maps the possible subject access points and presents research done on each kind of these. It shows how theorie of IR must build on or relate to different theories of concepts and meaning. It discusses 2 contrasting theories of semantics worked out by Ludwig Wittgenstein: 'the picture theory' and 'the theory od language games' and demonstrates the different consequences for such theories for IR. Finally, the implications for information professionals are discussed

0.0041203364 = product of:
  0.02060168 = sum of:
    0.02060168 = product of:
      0.04120336 = sum of:
        0.04120336 = weight(_text_:problems in 6963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04120336 = score(doc=6963,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.27361554 = fieldWeight in 6963, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6963)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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

0.0041203364 = product of:
  0.02060168 = sum of:
    0.02060168 = product of:
      0.04120336 = sum of:
        0.04120336 = weight(_text_:problems in 304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04120336 = score(doc=304,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.27361554 = fieldWeight in 304, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=304)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article presents a socio-cognitive perspective in relation to information science (IS) and information retrieval (IR). The differences between traditional cognitive views and the socio-cognitive or domain-analytic view are outlined. It is claimed that, given elementary skills in computer-based retrieval, people are basically interacting with representations of subject literatures in IR. The kind of knowledge needed to interact with representations of subject literatures is discussed. It is shown how different approaches or "paradigms" in the represented literature imply different information needs and relevance criteria (which users typically cannot express very well, which is why IS cannot primarily rely on user studies). These principles are exemplified by comparing behaviorism, cognitivism, psychoanalysis, and neuroscience as approaches in psychology. The relevance criteria implicit in each position are outlined, and empirical data are provided to prove the theoretical claims. It is further shown that the most general level of relevance criteria is implied by epistemological theories. The article concludes that the fundamental problems of IS and IR are based in epistemology, which therefore becomes the most important allied field for IS.

0.0041203364 = product of:
  0.02060168 = sum of:
    0.02060168 = product of:
      0.04120336 = sum of:
        0.04120336 = weight(_text_:problems in 4409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04120336 = score(doc=4409,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.27361554 = fieldWeight in 4409, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4409)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this afterword is to examine which questions have been illuminated in the present issue and which theoretical problems still need to be addressed. Design/methodology/approach - Examines articles in this issue. Findings - Many epistemological views, e.g. social constructivism, critical theory, feminist epistemology, postmodernism and systems theory, need to be considered more deeply within library and information science (LIS). For some of the other epistemologies such as phenomenology and (post)structuralism there is still a need for deeper explorations of their potential contributions. Finally eclecticism is discussed as one way of coping with different theories in a field. Originality/value - The value of this afterword is to contribute to future reflections and debates concerning the philosophical basis of LIS and the specific contributions of specific systems of thought.

0.0041203364 = product of:
  0.02060168 = sum of:
    0.02060168 = product of:
      0.04120336 = sum of:
        0.04120336 = weight(_text_:problems in 3169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04120336 = score(doc=3169,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.27361554 = fieldWeight in 3169, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3169)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

A distinction can be made between "artificial classifications" and "natural classifications," where artificial classifications may adequately serve some limited purposes, but natural classifications are overall most fruitful by allowing inference and thus many different purposes. There is strong support for the view that a natural classification should be based on a theory (and, of course, that the most fruitful theory provides the most fruitful classification). Nevertheless, atheoretical (or "descriptive") classifications are often produced. Paradoxically, atheoretical classifications may be very successful. The best example of a successful "atheoretical" classification is probably the prestigious Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) since its third edition from 1980. Based on such successes one may ask: Should the claim that classifications ideally are natural and theory-based be reconsidered? This paper argues that the seemingly success of atheoretical classifications hides deeper problems and that the ideal of theory-based classification should be maintained.

0.0041203364 = product of:
  0.02060168 = sum of:
    0.02060168 = product of:
      0.04120336 = sum of:
        0.04120336 = weight(_text_:problems in 206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04120336 = score(doc=206,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.27361554 = fieldWeight in 206, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=206)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Information retrieval (IR) is about making systems for finding documents or information. Knowledge organization (KO) is the field concerned with indexing, classification, and representing documents for IR, browsing, and related processes, whether performed by humans or computers. The field of IR is today dominated by search engines like Google. An important difference between KO and IR as research fields is that KO attempts to reflect knowledge as depicted by contemporary scholarship, in contrast to IR, which is based on, for example, "match" techniques, popularity measures or personalization principles. The classification of documents in KO mostly aims at reflecting the classification of knowledge in the sciences. Books about birds, for example, mostly reflect (or aim at reflecting) how birds are classified in ornithology. KO therefore requires access to the adequate subject knowledge; however, this is often characterized by disagreements. At the deepest layer, such disagreements are based on philosophical issues best characterized as "paradigms". No IR technology and no system of knowledge organization can ever be neutral in relation to paradigmatic conflicts, and therefore such philosophical problems represent the basis for the study of IR and KO.

0.0041203364 = product of:
  0.02060168 = sum of:
    0.02060168 = product of:
      0.04120336 = sum of:
        0.04120336 = weight(_text_:problems in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04120336 = score(doc=444,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.27361554 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

A citation index is a bibliographic database that provides citation links between documents. The first modern citation index was suggested by the researcher Eugene Garfield in 1955 and created by him in 1964, and it represents an important innovation to knowledge organization and information retrieval. This article describes citation indexes in general, considering the modern citation indexes, including Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Crossref, Dimensions and some special citation indexes and predecessors to the modern citation index like Shepard's Citations. We present comparative studies of the major ones and survey theoretical problems related to the role of citation indexes as subject access points (SAP), recognizing the implications to knowledge organization and information retrieval. Finally, studies on citation behavior are presented and the influence of citation indexes on knowledge organization, information retrieval and the scientific information ecosystem is recognized.

0.0041203364 = product of:
  0.02060168 = sum of:
    0.02060168 = product of:
      0.04120336 = sum of:
        0.04120336 = weight(_text_:problems in 586) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04120336 = score(doc=586,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.27361554 = fieldWeight in 586, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=586)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article presents and discusses different kinds of data documents, including data sets, data studies, data papers and data journals. It provides descriptive and bibliometric data on different kinds of data documents and discusses the theoretical and philosophical problems by classifying documents according to the DIKW model (data documents, information documents, knowl­edge documents and wisdom documents). Data documents are, on the one hand, an established category today, even with its own data citation index (DCI). On the other hand, data documents have blurred boundaries in relation to other kinds of documents and seem sometimes to be understood from the problematic philosophical assumption that a datum can be understood as "a single, fixed truth, valid for everyone, everywhere, at all times".

0.0034601947 = product of:
  0.017300973 = sum of:
    0.017300973 = product of:
      0.034601945 = sum of:
        0.034601945 = weight(_text_:22 in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034601945 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12776221 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

21. 7.2006 14:11:22

0.0034601947 = product of:
  0.017300973 = sum of:
    0.017300973 = product of:
      0.034601945 = sum of:
        0.034601945 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034601945 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12776221 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Pages

S.22-36

0.0034336136 = product of:
  0.017168067 = sum of:
    0.017168067 = product of:
      0.034336135 = sum of:
        0.034336135 = weight(_text_:problems in 2273) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034336135 = score(doc=2273,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.22801295 = fieldWeight in 2273, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2273)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article is a programmatic article, which formulates a new approach to information science (IS): domain analysis. This approach states that the most fruitful horizon for IS is to study the knowledge-domains as thought or discourse communities, which are parts of society's division of labor. The article is also a review article, providing a multidisciplinary description of research, illuminating this theoretical view. The first section presents contemporary research in IS, sharing the fundamental viewpoint that IS should be seen as a social rather than as a purely mental discipline. In addition, important predecessors to this view are mentioned and the possibilities as well as the limitations of their approaches are discussed. The second section describes recent transdisciplinary tendencies in the understanding of knowledge. In bordering disciplines to IS, such as educational research, psychology, linguistics, and the philosophy of science, an important new view of knowledge is appearing in the 1990s. This new view of knowledge stresses the social ecological, and content-oriented nature of knowledge. This is opposed to the more formal, computer-like approaches that dominated in the 1980s. The third section compares domain-analysis to other major approaches in IS, such as the cognitive approach. The final section outlines important problems to be investigates, such as how different knowledge-doamins affect the informational value of different subject access points in databases

0.0034336136 = product of:
  0.017168067 = sum of:
    0.017168067 = product of:
      0.034336135 = sum of:
        0.034336135 = weight(_text_:problems in 388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034336135 = score(doc=388,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.22801295 = fieldWeight in 388, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=388)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine challenges facing bibliographic classification at both the practical and theoretical levels. At the practical level, libraries are increasingly dispensing with classifying books. At the theoretical level, many researchers, managers, and users believe that the activity of "classification" is not worth the effort, as search engines can be improved without the heavy cost of providing metadata. Design/methodology/approach - The basic issue in classification is seen as providing criteria for deciding whether A should be classified as X. Such decisions are considered to be dependent on the purpose and values inherent in the specific classification process. These decisions are not independent of theories and values in the document being classified, but are dependent on an interpretation of the discourses within those documents. Findings - At the practical level, there is a need to provide high-quality control mechanisms. At the theoretical level, there is a need to establish the basis of each decision, and to change the philosophy of classification from being based on "standardisation" to being based on classifications tailored to different domains and purposes. Evidence-based practice provides an example of the importance of classifying documents according to research methods. Originality/value - Solving both the practical (organisational) and the theoretical problems facing classification is necessary if the field is to survive both as a practice and as an academic subject within library and information science. This article presents strategies designed to tackle these challenges.

0.0034336136 = product of:
  0.017168067 = sum of:
    0.017168067 = product of:
      0.034336135 = sum of:
        0.034336135 = weight(_text_:problems in 4626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034336135 = score(doc=4626,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.22801295 = fieldWeight in 4626, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4626)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to make a critical analysis of the views put forward by Claudio Gnoli (2018) in this paper concerning philosophical problems in library and information science (LIS). Design/methodology/approach The paper presents the basic ideas in Gnoli (2018) and discusses the set of basic assumptions, concepts and conclusions put forward. Findings It is argued that the idea of the theory of levels is basically sound, but we do not need to consider the material world, the mental world (minds) and the world of mentefacts as three different worlds. They represent different levels with different kinds of emergent properties in the world. Further, although the concepts of artifacts and mentefacts are useful, there are other terms within LIS, such as document, work and object that have been influential and should be discussed in this context. It is also argued that subjective vs objective knowledge is often confused with private vs public knowledge, which is problematic. Finally, it is claimed that the cognitive view and the "sociological view" are not about two different levels of reality but are competing views about the same reality. Originality/value The paper clarifies some aspects of the analytical framework of domain analysis and adds to the developments of the philosophical dimensions of information within LIS.

0.0034336136 = product of:
  0.017168067 = sum of:
    0.017168067 = product of:
      0.034336135 = sum of:
        0.034336135 = weight(_text_:problems in 1124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034336135 = score(doc=1124,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.22801295 = fieldWeight in 1124, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1124)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article provides analyses, describes dilemmas, and suggests way forwards in the teaching of knowl­edge organization (KO). The general assumption of the article is that theoretical problems in KO must be the point of departure for teaching KO. Section 2 addresses the teaching of practical, applied and professional KO, focusing on learning about specific knowl­edge organization systems (KOS), specific standards, and specific methods for organizing knowl­edge, but provides arguments for not isolating these aspects from theoretical issues. Section 3 is about teaching theoretical and academic KO, in which the focus is on examining the bases on which KOSs and knowl­edge organization processes such as classifying and indexing are founded. This basically concerns concepts and conceptual relations and should not be based on prejudices about the superiority of either humans or computers for KO. Section 4 is about the study of education in KO, which is considered important because it is about how the field is monitoring itself and about how it should be shaping its own future. Section 5 is about the role of the ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowl­edge Organization in education of KO, emphasizing the need for an interdisciplinary source that may help improve the conceptual clarity in the field. The conclusion suggests some specific recommendations for curricula in KO based on the author's view of KO.

0.0034336136 = product of:
  0.017168067 = sum of:
    0.017168067 = product of:
      0.034336135 = sum of:
        0.034336135 = weight(_text_:problems in 1131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034336135 = score(doc=1131,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15058853 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.036484417 = queryNorm
            0.22801295 = fieldWeight in 1131, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1274753 = idf(docFreq=1937, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1131)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Section 1 of this article discusses the concept of bibliographical control and makes a distinction between this term, "bibliographical description," and related terms, which are often confused in the literature. It further discusses the function of bibliographical control and criticizes Patrick Wilson's distinction between "exploitative control" and "descriptive control." Section 2 presents projects for establishing bibliographic control from the Library of Alexandria to the Internet and Google, and it is found that these projects have often been dominated by a positivist dream to make all information in the world available to everybody. Section 3 discusses the theoretical problems of providing comprehensive coverage and retrieving documents represented in databases and argues that 100% coverage and retrievability is an unobtainable ideal. It is shown that bibliographical control has been taken very seriously in the field of medicine, where knowledge of the most important findings is of utmost importance. In principle, it is equally important in all other domains. The conclusion states that the alternative to a positivist dream of complete bibliographic control is a pragmatic philosophy aiming at optimizing bibliographic control supporting specific activities, perspectives, and interests.