Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

0.01698048 = product of:
  0.11886335 = sum of:
    0.11886335 = sum of:
      0.09132012 = weight(_text_:policy in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.09132012 = score(doc=1096,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.21800333 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04065836 = queryNorm
          0.41889322 = fieldWeight in 1096, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1096)
      0.027543232 = weight(_text_:22 in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027543232 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14237864 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04065836 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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

0.014149049 = product of:
  0.04952167 = sum of:
    0.030149749 = weight(_text_:networks in 5079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030149749 = score(doc=5079,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19231078 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04065836 = queryNorm
        0.15677617 = fieldWeight in 5079, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.72992 = idf(docFreq=1060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5079)
    0.019371921 = product of:
      0.038743842 = sum of:
        0.038743842 = weight(_text_:policy in 5079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038743842 = score(doc=5079,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21800333 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04065836 = queryNorm
            0.17772134 = fieldWeight in 5079, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5079)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The concept of information as we use it in everyday English, in the sense of knowledge communicated, plays a central role in contemporary society. The development and widespread use of computer networks since the end of World War II, and the emergence of information science as a discipline in the 1950s, are evidence of this focus. Although knowledge and its communication are basic phenomena of every human society, it is the rise of information technology and its global impacts that characterize ours as an information society. It is commonplace to consider information as a basic condition for economic development together with capital, labor, and raw material; but what makes information especially significant at present is its digital nature. The impact of information technology an the natural and social sciences in particular has made this everyday notion a highly controversial concept. Claude Shannon's (1948) "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" is a landmark work, referring to the common use of information with its semantic and pragmatic dimensions, while at the same time redefining the concept within an engineering framework. The fact that the concept of knowledge communication has been designated by the word information seems, prima facie, a linguistic happenstance. For a science like information science (IS), it is of course important how fundamental terms are defined; and in IS, as in other fields, the question of how to define information is often raised. This chapter is an attempt to review the status of the concept of information in IS, with reference also to interdisciplinary trends. In scientific discourse, theoretical concepts are not true or false elements or glimpses of some element of reality; rather, they are constructions designed to do a job in the best possible way. Different conceptions of fundamental terms like information are thus more or less fruitful, depending an the theories (and in the end, the practical actions) they are expected to support. In the opening section, we discuss the problem of defining terms from the perspective of the philosophy of science. The history of a word provides us with anecdotes that are tangential to the concept itself. But in our case, the use of the word information points to a specific perspective from which the concept of knowledge communication has been defined. This perspective includes such characteristics as novelty and relevante; i.e., it refers to the process of knowledge transformation, and particularly to selection and interpretation within a specific context. The discussion leads to the questions of why and when this meaning was designated with the word information. We will explore this history, and we believe that our results may help readers better understand the complexity of the concept with regard to its scientific definitions.
Discussions about the concept of information in other disciplines are very important for IS because many theories and approaches in IS have their origins elsewhere (see the section "Information as an Interdisciplinary Concept" in this chapter). The epistemological concept of information brings into play nonhuman information processes, particularly in physics and biology. And vice versa: the psychic and sociological processes of selection and interpretation may be considered using objective parameters, leaving aside the semantic dimension, or more precisely, by considering objective or situational parameters of interpretation. This concept can be illustrated also in physical terms with regard to release mechanisms, as we suggest. Our overview of the concept of information in the natural sciences as well as in the humanities and social sciences cannot hope to be comprehensive. In most cases, we can refer only to fragments of theories. However, the reader may wish to follow the leads provided in the bibliography. Readers interested primarily in information science may derive most benefit from the section an "Information in Information Science," in which we offer a detailed explanation of diverse views and theories of information within our field; supplementing the recent ARIST chapter by Cornelius (2002). We show that the introduction of the concept of information circa 1950 to the domain of special librarianship and documentation has in itself had serious consequences for the types of knowledge and theories developed in our field. The important question is not only what meaning we give the term in IS, but also how it relates to other basic terms, such as documents, texts, and knowledge. Starting with an objectivist view from the world of information theory and cybernetics, information science has turned to the phenomena of relevance and interpretation as basic aspects of the concept of information. This change is in no way a turn to a subjectivist theory, but an appraisal of different perspectives that may determine in a particular context what is being considered as informative, be it a "thing" (Buckland, 1991b) or a document. Different concepts of information within information science reflect tensions between a subjective and an objective approach. The concept of interpretation or selection may be considered to be the bridge between these two poles. It is important, however, to consider the different professions involved with the interpretation and selection of knowledge. The most important thing in IS (as in information policy) is to consider information as a constitutive forte in society and, thus, recognize the teleological nature of information systems and services (Braman, 1989).

0.0076486445 = product of:
  0.05354051 = sum of:
    0.05354051 = weight(_text_:standards in 2131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05354051 = score(doc=2131,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18121246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04065836 = queryNorm
        0.29545712 = fieldWeight in 2131, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2131)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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.

0.0063738707 = product of:
  0.044617094 = sum of:
    0.044617094 = weight(_text_:standards in 1124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044617094 = score(doc=1124,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18121246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04065836 = queryNorm
        0.24621427 = fieldWeight in 1124, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4569545 = idf(docFreq=1393, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1124)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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.

0.004612363 = product of:
  0.03228654 = sum of:
    0.03228654 = product of:
      0.06457308 = sum of:
        0.06457308 = weight(_text_:policy in 3182) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06457308 = score(doc=3182,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21800333 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04065836 = queryNorm
            0.29620224 = fieldWeight in 3182, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.361833 = idf(docFreq=563, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3182)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This article presents and discusses the concept "subject" or subject matter (of documents) as it has been examined in library and information science (LIS) for more than 100 years. Different theoretical positions are outlined and it is found that the most important distinction is between document-oriented views versus request-oriented views. The document-oriented view conceive subject as something inherent in documents, whereas the request-oriented view (or the policy based view) understand subject as an attribution made to documents in order to facilitate certain uses of them. Related concepts such as concepts, aboutness, topic, isness and ofness are also briefly presented. The conclusion is that the most fruitful way of defining "subject" (of a document) is the documents informative or epistemological potentials, that is, the documents potentials of informing users and advance the development of knowledge.

0.0027543234 = product of:
  0.019280262 = sum of:
    0.019280262 = product of:
      0.038560525 = sum of:
        0.038560525 = weight(_text_:22 in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038560525 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14237864 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04065836 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

21. 7.2006 14:11:22

0.0027543234 = product of:
  0.019280262 = sum of:
    0.019280262 = product of:
      0.038560525 = sum of:
        0.038560525 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038560525 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14237864 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04065836 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Pages

S.22-36

0.0023608485 = product of:
  0.01652594 = sum of:
    0.01652594 = product of:
      0.03305188 = sum of:
        0.03305188 = weight(_text_:22 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03305188 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14237864 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04065836 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

17. 3.2011 19:22:55

0.0019673738 = product of:
  0.013771616 = sum of:
    0.013771616 = product of:
      0.027543232 = sum of:
        0.027543232 = weight(_text_:22 in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027543232 = score(doc=629,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14237864 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04065836 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

22. 2.2013 11:49:13

0.0019673738 = product of:
  0.013771616 = sum of:
    0.013771616 = product of:
      0.027543232 = sum of:
        0.027543232 = weight(_text_:22 in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027543232 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14237864 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04065836 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

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

9.836869E-4 = product of:
  0.006885808 = sum of:
    0.006885808 = product of:
      0.013771616 = sum of:
        0.013771616 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013771616 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14237864 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04065836 = 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)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Date

22. 3.2009 18:13:27