Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

0.013174651 = product of:
  0.026349302 = sum of:
    0.026349302 = product of:
      0.052698605 = sum of:
        0.052698605 = weight(_text_:libraries in 6963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052698605 = score(doc=6963,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1711139 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052088603 = queryNorm
            0.30797386 = fieldWeight in 6963, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6963)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

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)

0.012350251 = product of:
  0.024700502 = sum of:
    0.024700502 = product of:
      0.049401004 = sum of:
        0.049401004 = weight(_text_:22 in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049401004 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052088603 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

21. 7.2006 14:11:22

0.012350251 = product of:
  0.024700502 = sum of:
    0.024700502 = product of:
      0.049401004 = sum of:
        0.049401004 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.049401004 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052088603 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Pages

S.22-36

0.010978876 = product of:
  0.021957751 = sum of:
    0.021957751 = product of:
      0.043915503 = sum of:
        0.043915503 = weight(_text_:libraries in 832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043915503 = score(doc=832,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1711139 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052088603 = queryNorm
            0.25664487 = fieldWeight in 832, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=832)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The basic realist claim is that a mind-independent reality exists. It should be common sense knowledge to accept this claim, just as any theories that try to deny it soon become inconsistent because reality strikes back. In spite of this, antirealist philosophies flourish, not only in philosophy but also in the behavioral and cognitive sciences and in information science. This is highly problematic because it removes the attention from reality to subjective phenomena with no real explanatory power. Realism should not be confused with the view that all scientific claims are true or with any other kind of naiveté concerning knowledge claims. The opposite of realism may be termed antirealism, idealism, or nominalism. Although many people confuse empiricism and positivism with realism, these traditions are by nature strongly antirealist, which is why a sharp distinction should be made between empiricism and realism. Empirical research should not be founded on assumptions about "the given" of observations, but should recognize the theory-laden nature of observations. Domain analysis represents an attempt to reintroduce a realist perspective in library and information science. A realist conception of relevance, information seeking, information retrieval, and knowledge organization is outlined. Information systems of all kinds, including research libraries and public libraries, should be informed by a realist philosophy and a realist information science.

0.010585929 = product of:
  0.021171859 = sum of:
    0.021171859 = product of:
      0.042343717 = sum of:
        0.042343717 = weight(_text_:22 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.042343717 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052088603 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

17. 3.2011 19:22:55

0.009315886 = product of:
  0.018631771 = sum of:
    0.018631771 = product of:
      0.037263542 = sum of:
        0.037263542 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037263542 = score(doc=2131,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1711139 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052088603 = queryNorm
            0.2177704 = fieldWeight in 2131, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2131)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.0088216085 = product of:
  0.017643217 = sum of:
    0.017643217 = product of:
      0.035286434 = sum of:
        0.035286434 = weight(_text_:22 in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035286434 = score(doc=629,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052088603 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2013 11:49:13

0.0088216085 = product of:
  0.017643217 = sum of:
    0.017643217 = product of:
      0.035286434 = sum of:
        0.035286434 = weight(_text_:22 in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035286434 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052088603 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.0088216085 = product of:
  0.017643217 = sum of:
    0.017643217 = product of:
      0.035286434 = sum of:
        0.035286434 = weight(_text_:22 in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035286434 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052088603 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

18.11.2023 13:47:22

0.007763238 = product of:
  0.015526476 = sum of:
    0.015526476 = product of:
      0.031052953 = sum of:
        0.031052953 = weight(_text_:libraries in 388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031052953 = score(doc=388,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1711139 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052088603 = queryNorm
            0.18147534 = fieldWeight in 388, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=388)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.0062105902 = product of:
  0.0124211805 = sum of:
    0.0124211805 = product of:
      0.024842361 = sum of:
        0.024842361 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024842361 = score(doc=2290,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1711139 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052088603 = queryNorm
            0.14518027 = fieldWeight in 2290, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2290)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article is organized in 10 sections: (1) Knowledge Organization (KO) is a wide interdisciplinary field, muck broader than Library and Information Science (LIS). (2) Inside LIS there have been many different approaches and traditions of KO with little mutual influence. These traditions have to a large extent been defined by new technology, for which reason the theoretical integration and underpinning has not been well considered. The most important technology-driven traditions are: a) Manual indexing and classification in libraries and reference works, b) Documentation and scientific communication, c) Information storage and retrieval by computers, d) Citation based KO and e) Full text, hypertext and Internet based approaches. These traditions taken together define very muck the special LIS focus an KO. For KO as a field of research it is important to establish a fruitful theoretical frame of reference for this overall field. This paper provides some suggestions. (3) One important theoretical distinction to consider is the one between social and intellectual forms of KO. Social forms of KO are related to professional training, disciplines and social groups while intellectual organization is related to concepts and theories in the fields to be organized. (4) The social perspective includes in addition the systems of genres and documents as well as the social system of knowledge Producers, knowledge intermediaries and knowledge users. (5) This social system of documents, genres and agents makes available a very complicated structure of potential subject access points (SAPs), which may be used in information retrieval (IR). The basic alm of research in KO is to develop knowledge an how to optimise this system of SAPs and its utilization in IR. (6) SAPs may be seen as signs, and their production and use may be understood from a social semiotic point of view. (7) The concept of paradigms is also helpful because different groups and interests tend to be organized according to a paradigm and to develop different criteria of relevance, and thus different criteria of likeliness in KO. (8) The basic unit in KO is the semantic relation between two concepts, and such relations are embedded in theories. (9) In classification like things are grouped together, but what is considered similar is not a trivial question. (10) The paper concludes with the considering of methods for KO. Basically the methods of any field are connected with epistemological theories. This is also the case with KO. The existing methods as described in the literature of KO fit into a classification of basic epistemological views. The debate about the methods of KO at the deepest level therefore implies an epistemological discussion.

0.0062105902 = product of:
  0.0124211805 = sum of:
    0.0124211805 = product of:
      0.024842361 = sum of:
        0.024842361 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024842361 = score(doc=2760,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1711139 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052088603 = queryNorm
            0.14518027 = fieldWeight in 2760, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2760)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.0044108042 = product of:
  0.0088216085 = sum of:
    0.0088216085 = product of:
      0.017643217 = sum of:
        0.017643217 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017643217 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18240541 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052088603 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2009 18:13:27