Search (25 results, page 1 of 2)

0.039827257 = product of:
  0.106206015 = sum of:
    0.018899433 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018899433 = score(doc=2671,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.14518027 = fieldWeight in 2671, 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=2671)
    0.047871374 = weight(_text_:case in 2671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.047871374 = score(doc=2671,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.2747759 = fieldWeight in 2671, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2671)
    0.03943521 = weight(_text_:studies in 2671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03943521 = score(doc=2671,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.24939215 = fieldWeight in 2671, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2671)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

The harmonization and extension of a taxonomy of works from the documentary to the artefactual domain represents an attempt to further knowledge sharing across cultural boundaries. The uses and users of works, both documentary and artefactual, are global-the need for this advance in the organization of knowledge is therefore also global. Works are the formal records of knowledge, the essential records of human accomplishment. Works are a global phenomenon despite potential cultural variations in their creation and instantiation, and the need to organize works for retrieval is likewise a global phenomenon. Artefacts (sculptures, paintings, realia, documents, books, scores, recordings, etc.) are the physical media collected by repositories of culture (libraries, archives, museums, etc.), and are the means by which works are communicated. Works mutate and derive across time and culture in response to their entrance into a canon of cultural meaning. In the present paper, we review the characteristics of documentary works. Then we extend the metaphor from the documentary environment to the artefactual environment. To carry the metaphor from the documentary domain to the artefactual domain we alter the terms of the definition slightly, thus: 1) instantiation is understood as content genealogy. an epistemological architecture of content-genealogy is presented, demonstrating the potential for mutation and derivation of the representations of artefacts. Case studies of Etruscan artefacts from the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology are used to demonstrate the inherence of the work in nondocumentary artefacts. An outline of a meta-theory of "works" is presented that harmonizes the documentary and artefactual domains.

0.034957908 = product of:
  0.13983163 = sum of:
    0.059839215 = weight(_text_:case in 1412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059839215 = score(doc=1412,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.34346986 = fieldWeight in 1412, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1412)
    0.07999241 = sum of:
      0.0531474 = weight(_text_:area in 1412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0531474 = score(doc=1412,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1952553 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03962768 = queryNorm
          0.27219442 = fieldWeight in 1412, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.927245 = idf(docFreq=870, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1412)
      0.026845016 = weight(_text_:22 in 1412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026845016 = score(doc=1412,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03962768 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1412, 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=1412)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Scholarly domains have been analyzed using various tools and techniques to reveal complex genealogies of scholarship, authorship, citation and ontology, resulting in not only deeper knowledge of each area studied, but in a better developed set of methodologies for domain exploration in general. While domain analysis itself is being used frequently in LIS, there remain many areas against which domain analytical tools have not yet been applied. This is the case with encyclopedic collections of knowledge, such as that which is being developed as the Encyclopedia of Milwaukee (EMKE) within the history department at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. This descriptive study will analyze resources categorized under race and ethnicity from a comprehensive bibliography on the history of metropolitan Milwaukee that was designed to serve those who would research and write entries for the EMKE. Bibliometric and analytic techniques are employed to explore the intension and extension of the domain as it is developing.

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

0.032367557 = product of:
  0.12947023 = sum of:
    0.0946141 = weight(_text_:case in 3627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0946141 = score(doc=3627,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.54307353 = fieldWeight in 3627, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3627)
    0.034856133 = weight(_text_:studies in 3627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034856133 = score(doc=3627,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 3627, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3627)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

A very important extension of the traditional domain of knowledge organization (KO) arises from attempts to incorporate techniques devised in the computer science domain for automatic concept extraction and for grouping, categorizing, clustering and otherwise organizing knowledge using mechanical means. Four specific terms have emerged to identify the most prevalent techniques: machine learning, clustering, automatic indexing, and automatic classification. Our study presents three domain analytical case analyses in search of answers. The first case relies on citations located using the ISKO-supported "Knowledge Organization Bibliography." The second case relies on works in both Web of Science and SCOPUS. Case three applies co-word analysis and citation analysis to the contents of the papers in the present special issue. We observe scholars involved in "clustering" and "automatic classification" who share common thematic emphases. But we have found no coherence, no common activity and no social semantics. We have not found a research front, or a common teleology within the KO domain. We also have found a lively group of authors who have succeeded in submitting papers to this special issue, and their work quite interestingly aligns with the case studies we report. There is an emphasis on KO for information retrieval; there is much work on clustering (which involves conceptual points within texts) and automatic classification (which involves semantic groupings at the meta-document level).

0.03086754 = product of:
  0.12347016 = sum of:
    0.06770035 = weight(_text_:case in 4891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06770035 = score(doc=4891,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.3885918 = fieldWeight in 4891, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4891)
    0.055769812 = weight(_text_:studies in 4891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055769812 = score(doc=4891,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.35269377 = fieldWeight in 4891, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4891)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

0.023150655 = product of:
  0.09260262 = sum of:
    0.05077526 = weight(_text_:case in 176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05077526 = score(doc=176,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 176, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=176)
    0.04182736 = weight(_text_:studies in 176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04182736 = score(doc=176,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 176, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=176)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Metadata schemes target resources as information-packages, without attention to the distinction between content and carrier. Most schema are derived without empirical understanding of the concepts that need to be represented, the ways in which terms representing the central concepts might best be derived, and how metadata descriptions will be used for retrieval. Research is required to resolve this dilemma, and much research will be required if the plethora of schemes that already exist are to be made efficacious for resource description and retrieval. Here I report the results of a preliminary study, which was designed to see whether the bibliographic concept of "the work" could be of any relevance among artifacts held by a museum. I extend the "works metaphor" from the bibliographic to the artifactual domain, by altering the terms of the definition slightly, thus: 1) instantiation is understood as content genealogy. Case studies of Etruscan artifacts from the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology are used to demonstrate the inherence of the work in non-documentary artifacts.

0.023150655 = product of:
  0.09260262 = sum of:
    0.05077526 = weight(_text_:case in 5575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05077526 = score(doc=5575,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 5575, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5575)
    0.04182736 = weight(_text_:studies in 5575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04182736 = score(doc=5575,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 5575, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5575)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

The fundamental principle of order in the library catalogue is the authorship principle, which serves as the organizing node of an alphabetico-classed system, in which "texts" of "works" are organized first alphabetically by uniform title of the progenitor work and then are subarranged using titles for variant instantiations, under the heading for an "author." We analyze case studies of entries from (1) the first documented imperial library catalogue, the Seven Epitomes (Qilue [??]), in China; (2) Abelard's Works, which featured prominently in the 1848 testimony of Antonio Panizzi; and (3) The French Chef and the large family of instantiated works associated with it. Our analysis shows that the catalogue typically contains many large superwork sets. A more pragmatic approach to the design of catalogues is to array descriptions of resources in relation to the superwork sets to which they might belong. In all cases, a multidimensional faceted arrangement incorporating ideational nodes from the universe of recorded knowledge holds promise for greatly enhanced retrieval capability.

0.01206966 = product of:
  0.04827864 = sum of:
    0.034856133 = weight(_text_:studies in 630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034856133 = score(doc=630,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 630, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=630)
    0.013422508 = product of:
      0.026845016 = sum of:
        0.026845016 = weight(_text_:22 in 630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026845016 = score(doc=630,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 630, 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=630)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

In the keynote paper for the 12th International ISKO Conference in Mysore I discussed the dynamicity of the domain of knowledge organization from the perspective of ongoing domain analyses. Metaanalysis of a series of studies shows that knowledge organization is a strong, scientific community, with a distinct extension that now embraces the search for interoperability, and with intension that shifts along two continuums, one of which is methodological (or epistemological) and ranges from empirical experimental methods to humanistic narrative methods, while the other is more contextual and ranges from concept theory to applied KOS. These elements seem to remain core in knowledge organization as a domain over time (Smiraglia 2012). Another interesting finding is the degree to which the intension along that theory-application continuum is stretched by papers presented at regional ISKO chapter conferences. Since 2006 it has been the policy of this journal to offer to publish the leading papers from any peer-reviewed regional ISKO conference. The papers are selected by conference organizers and forwarded to Knowledge Organization for publication. By analyzing the papers separately we are able to see both the presence of the domain's core internationally and the constant tug and pull on the intension as authors bring new ideas and new research to regional conferences. This editorial, then, summarizes papers from regional conferences that have appeared in Knowledge Organization in 2011 and 2012.

Date

22. 2.2013 11:09:49

0.009160972 = product of:
  0.07328778 = sum of:
    0.07328778 = weight(_text_:case in 3855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07328778 = score(doc=3855,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.420663 = fieldWeight in 3855, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3855)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Knowledge Organization Systems (KOSs) use arrays of related concepts to capture the ontological content of a domain; hierarchical structures are typical of such systems. Some KOSs also employ sets of crossconceptual descriptors that express different dimensions within a domain-facets. The recent increase in the prominence of facets and faceted systems has had major impact on the intension of the KO domain and this is visible in the domain's literature. An interesting question is how the discourse surrounding facets in KO and in related domains such as information science might be described. The present paper reports one case study in an ongoing research project to investigate the discourse of facets in KO. In this particular case, the formal current research literature represented by inclusion in the "Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts, Full Text" (LISTA) database is analyzed to discover aspects of the research front and its ongoing discourse concerning facets. A datasets of 1682 citations was analyzed. Results show thinking concerning information retrieval and the semantic web resides alongside implementation of faceted searching and the growth of faceted thesauri. Faceted classification remains important to the discourse, but the use of facet analysis is linked directly to applied aspects of information science.

0.008975883 = product of:
  0.071807064 = sum of:
    0.071807064 = weight(_text_:case in 1575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.071807064 = score(doc=1575,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.41216385 = fieldWeight in 1575, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1575)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to enhance cultural heritage data curation. A core research question of this study is how to share cultural heritage data by using ontologies. A case study was conducted using open government data mapped with the CIDOC-CRM (Conceptual Reference Model). Twelve library-related files in unstructured data format were collected from an open government website, Seoul Metropolitan Government of Korea (http://data.seoul.go.kr). By using the ontologies of the CIDOC CRM 5.1.2, we conducted a mapping process as a way of enhancing cultural heritage information to share information as a data component. We graphed each file then mapped each file in tables. Implications of this study are both the enhanced discoverability of unstructured data and the reusability of mapped information. Issues emerging from this study involve verification of detail for complete compatibility without further input from domain experts.

0.008242126 = product of:
  0.032968502 = sum of:
    0.011812146 = weight(_text_:libraries in 409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011812146 = score(doc=409,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.09073767 = fieldWeight in 409, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=409)
    0.021156358 = weight(_text_:case in 409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021156358 = score(doc=409,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.121434934 = fieldWeight in 409, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=409)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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.
An important aspect of what we do is facilitating the curatorial aspect of information retrieval or librarianship. What I mean is that our job is not merely to "mark and park," as generations of catalogers famously have said of both resource description and classification, or even to generate parking spaces (to press my metaphor), but rather our job is to place each entity in the best category, each artifact in the best environment, each resource on the best "shelf" to enhance its usability should it actually be sought for retrieval. Hope Olson (2002) has also written about the limits we create when we exercise the power to name. We must be aware of the consequences of our science. In librarianship in the United States at the moment there is a fair amount of hand-wringing about the future, and this anxiety has been fed by the report of Karen Calhoun on the changing nature of the catalog. Calhoun (2006) suggests that the library community should abandon many of its expensive knowledge organization practices - such as the Library of Congress Subject Headings - in favor of integration of search engines into library catalogs. As logical as this seems on the face of it (and as much as we might often have wished LCSH would go away!), purveyors of such notions have either forgotten or rejected the notion of the library as a social instrument, and therefore the order of things in libraries as an extension of that social role. We must also view knowledge organization then as a cultural enterprise, a social act that has consequences. The ontologies we use to devise categorical schemes imply certain realities. If we say there is no music other than Western Art, why, then there must be no point in paying any attention to music of any other sort, right? And if we say that UFOs are a kind of controversial knowledge, we join the community of non-believers who insist that UFOs do not exist. Surely if we thought they were viable phenomena we would create a concrete class for them (see DDC 001.942). Voila, now we know, UFOs do not exist - the DDC says so. And if a gay adolescent searches for literature to help understand and finds that it all falls under "perversion" then we have oppressed yet another youth (see Campbell 2001). Our actions have social consequences.

0.0074047255 = product of:
  0.059237804 = sum of:
    0.059237804 = weight(_text_:case in 261) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059237804 = score(doc=261,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.34001783 = fieldWeight in 261, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=261)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

0.0070872875 = product of:
  0.0566983 = sum of:
    0.0566983 = weight(_text_:libraries in 1674) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0566983 = score(doc=1674,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.4355408 = fieldWeight in 1674, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1674)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Imprint

Westport, CT : Libraries Unlimited

0.0043570166 = product of:
  0.034856133 = sum of:
    0.034856133 = weight(_text_:studies in 6676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034856133 = score(doc=6676,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 6676, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6676)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Derivative bibliographic relationships are the primary relationships that exist among the members of a bibliographic family--the set of interrelated works where the relationships among entities express shared semantic or linguistic activity. Derivative bibliographic relationships exist between any new conception of a work and its original source (the progenitor), or its successor, or both. Discipline was a poor predictor of derivative relationships in prior studies of derivative bibliographic relationships. For the present study random samples of works were drawn from the catalogs of the Bobst Library, New York University, and the Burke Library, Union Theological Seminary, New York. Two sites were chosen to allow a test of the differences in collection development patterns between a university research library and a theological library. Bibliographic families were compiled for each work. Results indicate: 1) derivative bibliographic relationships exist for somewhere between one-half and two-thirds of theological works in this study; 2) there is little difference in proportions of derivative bibliographic relationships or in the size of bibliographic families between the two collections; 3) there is a positive correlation between the age of the progenitor work and the size of the bibliographic family); 4) there are significant gaps in coverage of theological bibliographic families online; 5) there is some evidence of differing patterns of derivation between Judaic and Islamic literature and Christian literature; 5) forms and genres are useful in a limited way for predicting the incidence of derivative relationships in theological literature

0.004231272 = product of:
  0.033850174 = sum of:
    0.033850174 = weight(_text_:case in 134) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033850174 = score(doc=134,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.1942959 = fieldWeight in 134, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=134)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Works and items form documentary entities-packages that contain and may deliver one or more creative, communicative conceptions. At the most basic level a work is a set of ideas created and set into a document using text, with the intention of being communicated to a receiver. Works are essential vehicles for communication of information across temporal and cultural boundaries. As such, works demonstrate the characteristics of signs and symbols. Further, works may have membership in a canon. A taxonomic definition of the work is presented, which encompasses the cultural and documentary characteristics of works. This definition can be seen as a precursor to epistemological understanding of signifying documentary entities. Works and items are joined variously to form documentary entities--packages that contain and may deliver one or more creative, communicative conceptions. At the most basic level a work is a set of ideas created and set into a document using text, with the intention of being communicated to a receiver. A work may have many texts, and may appear in many documents and even in many documentary forms. Marco and Navarro (1993) have suggested that epistemological analysis of the paradigms of knowledge are essential for the design and implementation of cognitive strategies to guide documentary analysis. Such is the case with the understanding of the work component of the documentary entity. Marco and Navarro also assert the usefulness of taxonomy as a key element of the epistemological analysis of paradigms. Works have been variously defined in the literature of information science, knowledge organization, linguistics, musicology, and literary criticism, among others. Works are essential vehicles for communication of information across temporal and cultural boundaries. In this paper a taxonomic definition of the work is presented. This definition encompasses the cultural and documentary characteristics of works. This definition can be seen as a precursor to epistemological understanding of signifying documentary entities

0.0041342513 = product of:
  0.03307401 = sum of:
    0.03307401 = weight(_text_:libraries in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03307401 = score(doc=343,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.25406548 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

0.004091847 = product of:
  0.032734778 = sum of:
    0.032734778 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032734778 = score(doc=2304,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.2514596 = fieldWeight in 2304, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2304)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

At the last Digital Library Conference in London two workshops took place - both (in parallel) devoted to the use of visualization in presenting and navigating large collections. One was entitled Search Is Over! and of the other Knowledge Maps and Information Retrieval. This anecdotal evidence stands for the growing and accelerating quest for visually enhanced interfaces to collections. Researchers from information visualization, computer human interaction, information retrieval, bibliometrics, digital humanities, art and network theory in parallel, often also in ignorance of each other, sometimes in interdisciplinary alliances are engaged in this quest. This paper reviews the current state-of-the-art, with special emphasis on the work of the COST Action TD1210 Knowescape. We discuss in more depth two examples of the use of visual analytics to create a fingerprint of an archive or a library, a data archive and a national library. We present examples from the micro-level of monitoring activities of users, over the meso-level to visualize features of bibliographic records, to macroscopes (a term coined by Katy Borner) into libraries and archives. We also discuss how different ways to perform visual analytics inform each other, how they are related to questions of data mining and statistical analysis, and which methods need to be combined or which communities need to collaborate. To illustrate some of these points we analysed Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) codes in bibliographic datasets of the National Library of Portugal. This is a potential still awaiting to be fully exploited in improving interfaces to subject access and management of classification data. It should be noted that UDC notation strings stored in bibliographic databases require specialist knowledge in both UDC and programming for any visualization tools to be applied. This UDC Seminar which is devoted to authority control is an opportunity to draw attention to the possibilities in visualization whose wider application depends on the readily structured, richer and more transparent subject metadata.

Content

Präsentation unter: http://de.slideshare.net/AndreaScharnhorst/knowledge-maps-for-libraries-and-archives-uses-and-use-cases.

0.0034856133 = product of:
  0.027884906 = sum of:
    0.027884906 = weight(_text_:studies in 2772) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027884906 = score(doc=2772,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.17634688 = fieldWeight in 2772, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2772)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Works are key entities in the universe of recorded knowledge. Works are those deliberate creations (known variously as opera, oeuvres, Werke, etc.) that stand as the formal records of knowledge. Core bodies of works-canons-function to preserve and disseminate the parameters of a culture. There is some evidence that popularity of works is a contributing factor to the phenomena of mutation and derivation. In particular, novels demonstrated the high incidence of both derivation and mutation of a popular literary work. Commercial interests combine with cultural forces to propel the evolution of popular novels as interest in them spreads across language and geographic boundaries. Earlier studies support a concept of the work as a collaborative entity that is changed over time by those who embrace it. The more popular the work, the more likely we will observe change over time. Cultural boundaries are crossed by the mutation of best-selling works, as their translations find collaborative roles in cultures different from that in which the work originated. The study of works that have appeared an best-seller lists (one measure of cultural embrace, or "popularity") might yield useful data for comprehension of the content and extent of the canon of popular works. In the present study, a sample of best-selling works (fiction and non-fiction) from 1900-1999 is examined. Preliminary evidence from the first phase of this study demonstrates the consistency of the theoretical functioning of works as cultural entities. That is, works that enter a canon derive and mutate dramatically, while those that do not remain unchanged. "Popularity" is not demonstrated as equated with "bestselling," but all best-selling books in the sample generated more than one edition.

0.0034856133 = product of:
  0.027884906 = sum of:
    0.027884906 = weight(_text_:studies in 1513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027884906 = score(doc=1513,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.17634688 = fieldWeight in 1513, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1513)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

The Elements of Knowledge Organization is a unique and original work introducing the fundamental concepts related to the field of Knowledge Organization (KO). There is no other book like it currently available. The author begins the book with a comprehensive discussion of "knowledge" and its associated theories. He then presents a thorough discussion of the philosophical underpinnings of knowledge organization. The author walks the reader through the Knowledge Organization domain expanding the core topics of ontologies, taxonomies, classification, metadata, thesauri and domain analysis. The author also presents the compelling challenges associated with the organization of knowledge. This is the first book focused on the concepts and theories associated with KO domain. Prior to this book, individuals wishing to study Knowledge Organization in its broadest sense would generally collocate their own resources, navigating the various methods and models and perhaps inadvertently excluding relevant materials. This text cohesively links key and related KO material and provides a deeper understanding of the domain in its broadest sense and with enough detail to truly investigate its many facets. This book will be useful to both graduate and undergraduate students in the computer science and information science domains both as a text and as a reference book. It will also be valuable to researchers and practitioners in the industry who are working on website development, database administration, data mining, data warehousing and data for search engines. The book is also beneficial to anyone interested in the concepts and theories associated with the organization of knowledge. Dr. Richard P. Smiraglia is a world-renowned author who is well published in the Knowledge Organization domain. Dr. Smiraglia is editor-in-chief of the journal Knowledge Organization, published by Ergon-Verlag of Würzburg. He is a professor and member of the Information Organization Research Group at the School of Information Studies at University of Wisconsin Milwaukee.

0.0029530365 = product of:
  0.023624292 = sum of:
    0.023624292 = weight(_text_:libraries in 3663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023624292 = score(doc=3663,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.18147534 = fieldWeight in 3663, 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=3663)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

To contribute to the development of a sophisticated control of bibliographic works research must be build on the growing understanding of the nature of the work and the constitution of bibliographic families. The present study was designed to address the following in the context of a global bibliographic database: OCLC's WorldCat: the proportion of works that are members of bibliographic families; the size of each family; bibliographic characteristics that can be associated with the existence or extent of derivative bibliographic relationships; the frequency with which each type of relationship appears; and the complexity of bibliographic families. A sample of bibliographic families was constructed. Results indicate that a core of works of similar character constitute the bibliographic population of American academic and research libraries (OCLC members). It seems that the canon of derivative works is greater in the academic sphere than in the bibliographic universe represented by OCLC at large. The size of a bibliographic family seems to be related to its popularity or its canonicity. Discipline, form, and genre all fail to demonstrate any influence on derivation of works. Further study of specific segments of the bibliographic universe, for instance the literature of particular disciplines, is clearly called for. The purpose of this research is to contribute to the development of a sophisticated control of bibliographic works and families. In particular, this research is designed to build on our growing understanding of the nature of the work and the constitution of bibliographic families

0.0020133762 = product of:
  0.01610701 = sum of:
    0.01610701 = product of:
      0.03221402 = sum of:
        0.03221402 = weight(_text_:22 in 1415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03221402 = score(doc=1415,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1415, 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=1415)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

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