Search (13 results, page 1 of 1)

0.023687614 = product of:
  0.09475046 = sum of:
    0.02538763 = weight(_text_:case in 1265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02538763 = score(doc=1265,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.14572193 = fieldWeight in 1265, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1265)
    0.06936283 = weight(_text_:studies in 1265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06936283 = score(doc=1265,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.43865734 = fieldWeight in 1265, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1265)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Content

"In a new article published in Journal of Documentation, 2002, I claim that the special competency of information specialists and information scientists are related to "domain analysis." Information science grew out of special librarianship and documentation (cf. Williams, 1997), and implicit in its tradition has in my opinion been a focus an subject knowledge. Although domain analysis has earlier been introduced in JASIST (Hjoerland & Albrechtsen, 1995), the new article introduces 11 Specific approaches to domain analysis, which I Claim together define the Specific competencies of information specialists. The approaches are (I) Producing and evaluating literature guides and subject gateways, (2) Producing and evaluating special classifications and thesauri, (3) Research an and competencies in indexing and retrieving information specialties, (4) Knowledge about empirical user studies in subject areas, (5) Producing and interpreting bibliometrical studies, (6) Historical studies of information structures and Services in domains, (7) Studies of documents and genres in knowledge domains, (8) Epistemological and critical studies of different paradigms, assumptions, and interests in domains, (9) Knowledge about terminological studies, LSP (Languages for Special Purposes), and discourse analysis in knowledge fields, (10) Knowledge about and studies of structures and institutions in scientific and professional communication in a domain, (11) Knowledge about methods and results from domain analytic studies about professional cognition, knowledge representation in computer science and artificial intelligence. By bringing these approaches together, the paper advocates a view which may have been implicit in previous literature but which has not before been Set out systematically. The approaches presented here are neither exhaustive nor mutually exhaustve, but an attempt is made to present the state of the art. Specific examples and selective reviews of literature are provided, and the strength and drawback of each of these approaches are being discussed. It is my Claim that the information specialist who has worked with these 1 1 approaches in a given domain (e.g., music, sociology, or chemistry) has a special expertise that should not be mixed up with the kind of expertise taught at universities in corresponding subjects. Some of these 11 approaches are today well-known in schools of LIS. Bibliometrics is an example, Other approaches are new and represent a view of what should be introduced in the training of information professionals. First and foremost does the article advocates the view that these 1 1 approaches should be seen as supplementary. That the Professional identity is best maintained if Chose methods are applied to the same examples (same domain). Somebody would perhaps feel that this would make the education of information professionals too narrow. The Counter argument is that you can only understand and use these methods properly in a new domain, if you already have a deep knowledge of the Specific information problems in at least orte domain. It is a dangerous illusion to believe that one becomes more competent to work in any field if orte does not know anything about any domain. The special challenge in our science is to provide general background for use in Specific fields. This is what domain analysis is developed for. Study programs that allow the students to specialize and to work independent in the selected field (such as, for example, the Curriculum at the Royal School of LIS in Denmark) should fit well with the intentions in domain analysis. In this connection it should be emphasized that the 11 approaches are presented as general approaches that may be used in about any domain whatsoever. They should, however, be seen in connection. If this is not the case, then their relative strengths and weaknesses cannot be evaluated. The approaches do not have the same status. Some (e.g., empirical user studies) are dependent an others (e.g., epistemological studies).
It is my hope that domain analysis may contribute to the strengthening of the professional and scientific identity of our discipline and provide more coherence and depth in information studies. The paper is an argument about what should be core teachings in our field, It should be both broad enough to cover the important parts of IS and Specific enough to maintain a special focus and identity compared to, for example, computer science and the cognitive sciences. It is not a narrow view of information science and an the other hand it does not Set forth an unrealistic utopia."

0.014788205 = product of:
  0.11830564 = sum of:
    0.11830564 = weight(_text_:studies in 4464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11830564 = score(doc=4464,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.74817646 = fieldWeight in 4464, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4464)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

What kind of knowledge is needed by information specialists working in a specific subject field like medicine, sociology or music? What approaches have been used in information science to produce kinds of domain-specific knowledge? This article presents 11 approaches to domain analysis. Together these approaches make a unique competence for information specialists. The approaches are: producing literature guides and subject gateways, producing special classifications and thesauri; research an indexing and retrieving specialities, empirical user studies; bibliometrical studies; historical studies; document and genre studies; epistemological and critical studies; terminological studies, LSP (languages for special purposes), discourse studies; studies of structures and institutions in scientific communication; and domain analysis in professional cognition and artificial intelligence. Specific examples and selective reviews of literature are provided, and the strengths and drawbacks of each of these approaches are discussed

0.013187402 = product of:
  0.052749608 = sum of:
    0.018899433 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018899433 = score(doc=2290,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = 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)
    0.033850174 = weight(_text_:case in 2290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033850174 = score(doc=2290,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.1942959 = fieldWeight in 2290, 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=2290)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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.

0.012835663 = product of:
  0.05134265 = sum of:
    0.021156358 = weight(_text_:case in 3013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021156358 = score(doc=3013,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.121434934 = fieldWeight in 3013, 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=3013)
    0.030186296 = weight(_text_:studies in 3013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030186296 = score(doc=3013,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.1909011 = fieldWeight in 3013, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3013)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

It is with very great pleasure that we introduce this special issue of Knowledge Organization on Domain Analysis (DA). Domain analysis is an approach to information science (IS) that emphasizes the social, historical, and cultural dimensions of information. It asserts that collective fields of knowledge, or "domains," form the unit of analysis of information science (IS). DA, elsewhere referred to as a sociocognitive (Hjoerland, 2002b; Jacob & Shaw, 1998) or collectivist (Talja et al, 2004) approach, is one of the major metatheoretical perspectives available to IS scholars to orient their thinking and research. DA's focus an domains stands in contrast to the alternative metatheories of cognitivism and information systems, which direct attention to psychological processes and technological processes, respectively. The first comprehensive international formulation of DA as an explicit point of view was Hjoerland and Albrechtsen (1995). However, a concern for information in the context of a community can be traced back to American library historian and visionary Jesse Shera, and is visible a century ago in the earliest practices of special librarians and European documentalists. More recently, Hjoerland (1998) produced a domain analytic study of the field of psychology; Jacob and Shaw (1998) made an important interpretation and historical review of DA; while Hjoerland (2002a) offered a seminal formulation of eleven approaches to the study of domains, receiving the ASLIB 2003 Award. Fjordback Soendergaard; Andersen and Hjoerland (2003) suggested an approach based an an updated version of the UNISIST-model of scientific communication. In fall 2003, under the conference theme of "Humanizing Information Technology" DA was featured in a keynote address at the annual meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (Hjorland, 2004). These publications and events are evidence of growth in representation of the DA view. To date, informal criticism of domain analysis has followed two tracks. Firstly, that DA assumes its communities to be academic in nature, leaving much of human experience unexplored. Secondly, that there is a lack of case studies illustrating the methods of domain analytic empirical research. Importantly, this special collection marks progress by addressing both issues. In the articles that follow, domains are perceived to be hobbies, professions, and realms of popular culture. Further, other papers serve as models of different ways to execute domain analytic scholarship, whether through traditional empirical methods, or historical and philosophical techniques. Eleven authors have contributed to this special issue, and their backgrounds reflect the diversity of interest in DA. Contributors come from North America, Europe, and the Middle East. Academics from leading research universities are represented. One writer is newly retired, several are in their heyday as scholars, and some are doctoral students just entering this field. This range of perspectives enriches the collection. The first two papers in this issue are invited papers and are, in our opinion, very important. Anders Oerom was a senior lecturer at the Royal Scbool of 'Library and Information Science in Denmark, Aalborg Branch. He retired from this position an March 1, 2004, and this paper is his last contribution in this position. We are grateful that he took the time to complete "Knowledge Organization in the Domain of Art Studies - History, Transition and Conceptual Changes" in spite of many other duties. Versions of the paper have previously been presented at a Ph.D-course in knowledge organization and related versions have been published in Danish and Spanish. In many respects, it represents a model of how a domain could, or should, be investigated from the DA point of view.
Hanne Albrechtsen & Annelise Mark Pejtersen's: "Cognitive Work Analysis and Work Centered Design of Classification Schemes" is also based an empirical studies, but focuses an work groups rather than literatures. It claims that deep semantic structures relevant to classification evolve dynamically in work groups. Its empirical method is different from Zins & Guttmann's. Future research must further uncover the relative strengths and weaknesses of literatures versus people in the construction of knowledge organizing systems. Jenna Hartel's: "The Serious Leisure Frontier in Library and Information Science: Hobby Domains" expands DA to the field of "everyday information use" and demonstrates that most of the approaches suggested by Hjoerland (2002a) may also be relevant to this field. Finally, Birger Hjoerland & Jenna Hartel's After-word: Some Basic Issues Related to the Notion of a Domain" suggests that the notions of ontology, epistemology, and sociology may be three fundamental dimensions of domains and that these perspectives may clarify what domains are and the dynamics of their development. While this special issue marks great progress, and the zenith of DA to date, the approach remains emergent and there is still much work to be done. We see the need for ongoing domain analytic research along two paths. Remarkably, to our knowledge no domain has been thoroughly studied in the domain analytic view. The first order, then, is rigorous application of DA to multiple domains. Second, theoretical and methodological gaps presently exist; these are opportunities for creative inventors to contribute original extensions to the approach. We warmly invite all readers to seriously engage with these articles, whether as critics, spectators, or participants in the domain analytic project.

0.0073941024 = product of:
  0.05915282 = sum of:
    0.05915282 = weight(_text_:studies in 830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05915282 = score(doc=830,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.37408823 = fieldWeight in 830, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=830)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this research is to examine the practical potentials of Bradford's law in relation to core-journal identification. Design/methodology/approach - Literature studies and empirical tests (Bradford analyses). Findings - Literature studies reveal that the concept of "subject" has never been explicitly addressed in relation to Bradford's law. The results of two empirical tests (Bradford analyses) demonstrate that different operationalizations of the concept of "subject" produce quite different lists of core-journals. Further, an empirical test reveals that Bradford analyses function discriminatorily against minority views. Practical implications - Bradford analysis can no longer be regarded as an objective and neutral method. The received view on Bradford's law needs to be revised. Originality/value - The paper questions one of the old dogmas of the field.

0.0052890894 = product of:
  0.042312715 = sum of:
    0.042312715 = weight(_text_:case in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042312715 = score(doc=3461,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 3461, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3461)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Concept theory is an extremely broad, interdisciplinary and complex field of research related to many deep fields with very long historical traditions without much consensus. However, information science and knowledge organization cannot avoid relating to theories of concepts. Knowledge organizing systems (e.g., classification systems, thesauri, and ontologies) should be understood as systems basically organizing concepts and their semantic relations. The same is the case with information retrieval systems. Different theories of concepts have different implications for how to construe, evaluate, and use such systems. Based on a post-Kuhnian view of paradigms, this article put forward arguments that the best understanding and classification of theories of concepts is to view and classify them in accordance with epistemological theories (empiricism, rationalism, historicism, and pragmatism). It is also argued that the historicist and pragmatist understandings of concepts are the most fruitful views and that this understanding may be part of a broader paradigm shift that is also beginning to take place in information science. The importance of historicist and pragmatic theories of concepts for information science is outlined.

0.00522842 = product of:
  0.04182736 = sum of:
    0.04182736 = weight(_text_:studies in 304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04182736 = score(doc=304,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15812531 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 304, 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=304)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

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.

0.004176224 = product of:
  0.033409793 = sum of:
    0.033409793 = weight(_text_:libraries in 832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.033409793 = score(doc=832,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = 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)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

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.

0.0035436437 = product of:
  0.02834915 = sum of:
    0.02834915 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02834915 = score(doc=2131,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = 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)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

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.

0.0031734537 = product of:
  0.02538763 = sum of:
    0.02538763 = weight(_text_:case in 5079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02538763 = score(doc=5079,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1742197 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = queryNorm
        0.14572193 = fieldWeight in 5079, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5079)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

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.

0.0023624292 = product of:
  0.018899433 = sum of:
    0.018899433 = weight(_text_:libraries in 2760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018899433 = score(doc=2760,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13017908 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2850544 = idf(docFreq=4499, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03962768 = 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)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

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.

0.002348939 = product of:
  0.018791512 = sum of:
    0.018791512 = product of:
      0.037583023 = sum of:
        0.037583023 = weight(_text_:22 in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037583023 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = 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)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

21. 7.2006 14:11:22

8.3890674E-4 = product of:
  0.006711254 = sum of:
    0.006711254 = product of:
      0.013422508 = sum of:
        0.013422508 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013422508 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13876937 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03962768 = 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)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

22. 3.2009 18:13:27