Search (29 results, page 1 of 2)

0.027572991 = product of:
  0.10110097 = sum of:
    0.064219736 = weight(_text_:effect in 422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.064219736 = score(doc=422,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18289955 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.35112026 = fieldWeight in 422, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.29663 = idf(docFreq=601, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=422)
    0.017701415 = weight(_text_:of in 422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017701415 = score(doc=422,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 422, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=422)
    0.01917981 = weight(_text_:on in 422) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01917981 = score(doc=422,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.25253648 = fieldWeight in 422, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=422)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)

Abstract

The changing role of libraries demands examination of the impact of the 21st century book market. Traditionally, public libraries have provided access to information in a physical form, but the purpose of the library has remained unchanged, that of providing access to information for all users. The increasing emphasis on electronic collections has led librarians to consider the issues involved with electronic sources. Changes in the book market, including globalization and the inclusion of the ebook affect libraries in many ways. This paper will examine the effect of globalization on the library and its relationship with publishers and publisher groups.

Content

Beitrag aus einem Themenheft zu den Proceedings of the 2nd Milwaukee Conference on Ethics in Information Organization, June 15-16, 2012, School of Information Studies, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Hope A. Olson, Conference Chair. Vgl.: http://www.ergon-verlag.de/isko_ko/downloads/ko_39_2012_5_a.pdf.

0.016850198 = product of:
  0.09267609 = sum of:
    0.01727841 = weight(_text_:of in 3959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01727841 = score(doc=3959,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 3959, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3959)
    0.07539768 = weight(_text_:technological in 3959) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07539768 = score(doc=3959,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18347798 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.41093582 = fieldWeight in 3959, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.3133807 = idf(docFreq=591, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3959)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

The problem of access to marginalized knowledge using general subject access standards is well-established, but few successful solutions have been developed. This paper surveys four different approaches to ameliorating bias: revision of general standards, adaptation of general standards, specialized standards for particular knowledge domains and specialized standards for particular situations. lt then examines their technological alternatives and institutional barriers to solutions. The analysis of standards, technologies and barriers is addressed through Ursula Franklin's interpretation of the real world of technology.

Source

Subject retrieval in a networked environment: Proceedings of the IFLA Satellite Meeting held in Dublin, OH, 14-16 August 2001 and sponsored by the IFLA Classification and Indexing Section, the IFLA Information Technology Section and OCLC. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine

0.009304918 = product of:
  0.034118034 = sum of:
    0.013193856 = weight(_text_:of in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013193856 = score(doc=5588,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 5588, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5588)
    0.009227889 = weight(_text_:on in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009227889 = score(doc=5588,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.121501654 = fieldWeight in 5588, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5588)
    0.011696288 = product of:
      0.023392577 = sum of:
        0.023392577 = weight(_text_:22 in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023392577 = score(doc=5588,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12092275 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034531306 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5588, 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=5588)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)

Abstract

To organize information, librarians create structures. These structures grow from a logic that goes back at least as far as Aristotle. It is the basis of classification as we practice it, and thesauri and subject headings have developed from it. Feminist critiques of logic suggest that logic is gendered in nature. This article will explore how these critiques play out in contemporary standards for the organization of information. Our widely used classification schemes embody principles such as hierarchical force that conform to traditional/Aristotelian logic. Our subject heading strings follow a linear path of subdivision. Our thesauri break down subjects into discrete concepts. In thesauri and subject heading lists we privilege hierarchical relationships, reflected in the syndetic structure of broader and narrower terms, over all other relationships. Are our classificatory and syndetic structures gendered? Are there other options? Carol Gilligan's In a Different Voice (1982), Women's Ways of Knowing (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986), and more recent related research suggest a different type of structure for women's knowledge grounded in "connected knowing." This article explores current and potential elements of connected knowing in subject access with a focus on the relationships, both paradigmatic and syntagmatic, between concepts.

Date

11.12.2019 19:00:22

0.009006907 = product of:
  0.033025324 = sum of:
    0.007916314 = weight(_text_:of in 1443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007916314 = score(doc=1443,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.14660224 = fieldWeight in 1443, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1443)
    0.011073467 = weight(_text_:on in 1443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011073467 = score(doc=1443,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 1443, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1443)
    0.014035545 = product of:
      0.02807109 = sum of:
        0.02807109 = weight(_text_:22 in 1443) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02807109 = score(doc=1443,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12092275 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034531306 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1443, 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=1443)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.27272728 = coord(3/11)

Abstract

Terms chosen to represent document subjects, the classification notations assigned to them, the abstracts and indices contain biases in two contexts. In a negative context, document surrogates are constructed with bias when they leave out diverse features, disenfranchise groups and topics outside an accepted norm (Olson, 2002). In this way, these document surrogates would convey inclinations, or prejudices. In a positive context, slanting or tendency (Hjørland, 2008a, McIlwaine, 2003) conveyed by the document surrogates to ensure specificity to particular discursive communities or knowledge domains can be observed. Considering that topics related to biases are scarce in the Information Organization literature, this paper proposes a discussion on the characteristics and occurrences of bias in subject representation. This study is exploratory and bibliographic, and adopts an inductive method.

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

0.0076124608 = product of:
  0.041868534 = sum of:
    0.01745383 = weight(_text_:of in 2214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01745383 = score(doc=2214,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.32322758 = fieldWeight in 2214, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2214)
    0.024414703 = weight(_text_:on in 2214) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024414703 = score(doc=2214,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.3214632 = fieldWeight in 2214, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2214)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this article is to examine interindexer consistency on a larger scale than other studies have done to determine if group consensus is reached by larger numbers of indexers and what, if any, relationships emerge between assigned terms. Design/methodology/approach - In total, 64 MLIS students were recruited to assign up to five terms to a document. The authors applied basic data modeling and the exploratory statistical techniques of multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) and hierarchical cluster analysis to determine whether relationships exist in indexing consistency and the coocurrence of assigned terms. Findings - Consistency in the assignment of indexing terms to a document follows an inverse shape, although it is not strictly power law-based unlike many other social phenomena. The exploratory techniques revealed that groups of terms clustered together. The resulting term cooccurrence relationships were largely syntagmatic. Research limitations/implications - The results are based on the indexing of one article by non-expert indexers and are, thus, not generalizable. Based on the study findings, along with the growing popularity of folksonomies and the apparent authority of communally developed information resources, communally developed indexes based on group consensus may have merit. Originality/value - Consistency in the assignment of indexing terms has been studied primarily on a small scale. Few studies have examined indexing on a larger scale with more than a handful of indexers. Recognition of the differences in indexing assignment has implications for the development of public information systems, especially those that do not use a controlled vocabulary and those tagged by end-users. In such cases, multiple access points that accommodate the different ways that users interpret content are needed so that searchers may be guided to relevant content despite using different terminology.

Source

Journal of documentation. 64(2008) no.4, S.602-615

0.006413583 = product of:
  0.035274707 = sum of:
    0.016818931 = weight(_text_:of in 4702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016818931 = score(doc=4702,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 4702, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4702)
    0.018455777 = weight(_text_:on in 4702) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018455777 = score(doc=4702,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 4702, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4702)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

The social and cultural influences on classification are evident in both the content and structure of classifications. In content, warrant, the basis on which content is determined, is most significant. Warrant is related to the purpose of the classification and has varied historically from the classical Greeks to the present. Warrant, whether it be what is written or published on a topic, what is taught, natural phenomena, or other factors is susceptible to all of the biases of the society that produces a classification. Biases of race, gender, orientation, geography, culture, language, and other factors are well-documented in relation to bibliographic classification. Bias occurs not only as a result of the warrant that determines content, but also as a result of classificatory structure. Classificatory structure may be culturally specific and the hierarchy typical of western classificatory structure can convey social influence through hierarchical force, ghettoization, and diasporization. Jesse Shera suggests the social importance of librarians and their role in classification. Combining Shera's theoretical stance with the historical/philosophical record and the empirical evidence of numerous studies in bibliographic classification, the link between society and classification is robust and of significance to the field of library and information science.

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates

0.005911077 = product of:
  0.03251092 = sum of:
    0.019591875 = weight(_text_:of in 664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019591875 = score(doc=664,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 664, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=664)
    0.012919044 = weight(_text_:on in 664) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012919044 = score(doc=664,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 664, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=664)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

Cataloguing education has been the focus of definition and ebate for over a century. Moving beyond cataloguing theory and the creation of records, to the management and process of producing catalogues, increases the complexity of demands placed on professionals and educators. Graduates need to understand their catalogues and integrated systems holistically. This requires a knowledge of each element, of standards governing the creation and maintenance of records, and of the relationship between the record and the catalogue and/or its constituent network. Moreover, the professional must know these things critically, and beyond mere acceptance of standards, so that the catalogue can effectively perform its mediating function between the collection and users

0.0058214664 = product of:
  0.032018065 = sum of:
    0.020944597 = weight(_text_:of in 2270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020944597 = score(doc=2270,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.38787308 = fieldWeight in 2270, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2270)
    0.011073467 = weight(_text_:on in 2270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011073467 = score(doc=2270,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 2270, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2270)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Content

Classifications of natural phenomena demonstrate the applicability of discourse analysis in finding the importance of concepts such as warrant for categorization and classification. Temperature scales provide a body of official literature for close consideration. Official documents of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) reveal the reasoning behind choices affecting these standards. A more cursory scrutiny of the Saffir-Simpson Scale through scholarly publications and documentation from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (KIST) indicates the potential of this form of analysis. The same holds true for an examination of the definition of what is a planet as determined by the International Astronomical Union. As Sayers, Richardson, and Bliss have indicated, there seem to be principles and a reliance on context that bridge the differences between natural and artificial, scientific and bibliographic classifications.

Source

Culture and identity in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Tenth International ISKO Conference 5-8 August 2008, Montreal, Canada. Ed. by Clément Arsenault and Joseph T. Tennis

0.0056323144 = product of:
  0.030977728 = sum of:
    0.014602924 = weight(_text_:of in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014602924 = score(doc=166,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 166, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=166)
    0.016374804 = product of:
      0.03274961 = sum of:
        0.03274961 = weight(_text_:22 in 166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03274961 = score(doc=166,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12092275 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034531306 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 166, 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=166)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

The idea of sameness is used to gather material in classifications. However, it is also used to separate what is different. Sameness and difference as guiding principles of classification seem obvious but are actually fundamental characteristics specifically related to Western culture. Sameness is not a singular factor, but has the potential to represent multiple characteristics or facets. This article explores the ramifications of which characteristics are used to define classifications and in what order. It explains the primacy of division by discipline, its origins in Western philosophy, and the cultural specificity that results. The Dewey Decimal Classification is used as an example throughout.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.005123098 = product of:
  0.028177038 = sum of:
    0.012516791 = weight(_text_:of in 3113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012516791 = score(doc=3113,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.23179851 = fieldWeight in 3113, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3113)
    0.015660247 = weight(_text_:on in 3113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015660247 = score(doc=3113,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 3113, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3113)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

A longstanding area of study in indexing is the identification of factors affecting vocabulary usage and consistency. This topic has seen a recent resurgence with a focus on social tagging. Tagging data for scholarly articles made available by the social bookmarking Website CiteULike (www.citeulike.org) were used to test the use of inter-indexer/tagger consistency density values, based on a method developed by the authors by comparing calculations for highly tagged documents representing three subject areas (Science, Social Science, Social Software). The analysis revealed that the developed method is viable for a large dataset. The findings also indicated that there were no significant differences in tagging consistency among the three topic areas, demonstrating that vocabulary usage in a relatively new subject area like social software is no more inconsistent than the more established subject areas investigated. The implications of the method used and the findings are discussed.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.10, S.1995-2003

0.004706097 = product of:
  0.025883533 = sum of:
    0.014810067 = weight(_text_:of in 5516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014810067 = score(doc=5516,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 5516, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5516)
    0.011073467 = weight(_text_:on in 5516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011073467 = score(doc=5516,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.14580199 = fieldWeight in 5516, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5516)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Abstract

This paper addresses the process of adapting to a particular culture or context a classification that has grown out of western culture to become a global standard. The authors use a project that adapts DDC for use in a feminist/women's issues context to demonstrate an approach that works. The project is particularly useful as an interdisciplinary example. Discussion consists of four parts: (1) definition of the problem indicating the need for adaptation and efforts to date; (2) description of the methodology developed for creating an expansion; (3) description of the interface developed for actually doing the work, with its potential for a distributed group to work on it together (could even be internationally distributed); and (4) generalization of how the methodology could be used for particular contexts by country, ethnicity, perspective or other defining factors.

0.0040281354 = product of:
  0.022154745 = sum of:
    0.0092357 = weight(_text_:of in 6113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0092357 = score(doc=6113,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.17103596 = fieldWeight in 6113, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6113)
    0.012919044 = weight(_text_:on in 6113) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012919044 = score(doc=6113,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07594867 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.17010231 = fieldWeight in 6113, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6113)
  0.18181819 = coord(2/11)

Footnote

Rez. in: Knowledge organization 28(2001) no.4, S.206-208 (C. Arsenault):"Overall, this is an excellent work, on an ever increasingly pertinent topic. This long-awaited second edition provides a thorough and comprehensive update of an already important text. I very highly recommend it to professionals and academics alike ; both neophytes and veterans will find it valuable. It is a fundamental work that cannot be ignored in the field of subject analysis and retrieval for all bibliographic systems, including online catalogs."

0.0019690578 = product of:
  0.021659635 = sum of:
    0.021659635 = weight(_text_:of in 1973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021659635 = score(doc=1973,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.40111488 = fieldWeight in 1973, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1973)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)

Abstract

In the recent years, several libraries in the United States have been experimenting with Book Industry Standards and Communications (BISAC), the classification system of the book industry, as an alternative to the Dewey Decimal Classification. Although rarely discussed, these cases of implementation of BISAC arguably resemble other past cases of replacement of traditional classifications that received the name of reader-interest classifications. In this article, a comparison of the BISAC cases to the previous cases of reader-interest classifications is taken in order to determine if the current application of BISAC to libraries is susceptible to the same problems, dangers, and ends as occurred in the past.

0.0019191063 = product of:
  0.02111017 = sum of:
    0.02111017 = weight(_text_:of in 833) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02111017 = score(doc=833,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.39093933 = fieldWeight in 833, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=833)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)

Abstract

This article explores the connections between Melvil Dewey and Hegelianism and Charles Cutter and the Scottish Common Sense philosophers. It traces the practice of hierarchy from these philosophical influences to Dewey and Cutter and their legacy to today's Dewey Decimal Classification and Library of Congress Subject Headings. The ubiquity of hierarchy is linked to Dewey's and Cutter's metaphor of organizing the mob of information into an orderly army using the tool of logic.

Footnote

Artikel in einem Themenheft: The philosophy of information

0.0019040543 = product of:
  0.020944597 = sum of:
    0.020944597 = weight(_text_:of in 3479) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020944597 = score(doc=3479,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.38787308 = fieldWeight in 3479, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3479)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)

Abstract

Hugh of St. Victor's Didascalicon is a twelfth-century classification of knowledge, or as Hugh would put it, of Wisdom, written in the context of medieval, Christian mysticism. This study reads the text through its cultural and intellectual context, including medieval themes of the problem of universals and the importance of numerology. The study addresses the question of whether or not Hugh's classification is part of the Aristotelian tradition of classificatory structure characterized by mutually exclusive categories, teleological progress toward a goal, and hierarchy, which is still with us today. It also examines the role of the liberal arts in Hugh's pedagogy and philosophy as exhibited in the Didascalicon.

0.0018774229 = product of:
  0.020651652 = sum of:
    0.020651652 = weight(_text_:of in 4466) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020651652 = score(doc=4466,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.38244802 = fieldWeight in 4466, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4466)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)

Abstract

This paper examines Parmenides's 'Fragments', Plato's 'The sophist', and Aristotle's 'Prior analytics, parts of animals', and 'Generation of animals' to identify 3 underlying presumptions of classical logic using the method of Foucauldian discourse analysis. These 3 presumptions are the notion of mutually exclusive categories, teleology in the sense of linear progression toward a goal, and hierarchy both through logical division and through the dominance of some classes over others. These 3 presumptions are linked to classificatory thought in the western tradition. The purpose of making the connections is to investigate the cultural specifity to western culture of widespread classificatory practice. It is a step in a larger study to examine classification as a cultural construction that may be systematically incompatible with other cultures and with marginalized elements of western culture

0.0018774229 = product of:
  0.020651652 = sum of:
    0.020651652 = weight(_text_:of in 1594) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020651652 = score(doc=1594,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.38244802 = fieldWeight in 1594, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1594)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)

Abstract

The paper explores the cultural construction of classification by identifying fundamental characteristics of classification and examining how these fit with other cultures. Foucault's method of discourse analysis is applied to selected texts an classification in two areas. The first area is classification originated in the dominant Western culture. The second area is classifications from indigenous cultures. It is concluded that classification research needs to have an increasing awareness of the cultural construction of classification schemes and to work with alternatives to approaches of fundamental universal principles of classification.

Source

Advances in classification research, vol.10: proceedings of the 10th ASIS SIG/CR Classification Research Workshop. Ed.: Albrechtsen, H. u. J.E. Mai

0.0016877638 = product of:
  0.018565401 = sum of:
    0.018565401 = weight(_text_:of in 3510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018565401 = score(doc=3510,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 3510, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3510)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)

Abstract

A major characteristic of classification is teleology interpreted as a linear progression toward knowledge. G.W.F. Hegel's three stages of knowledge development: Being (Sein), Essence (Wesen), and Idea (Begriff), explicated in his Science of logic form such a progression. Feminist postcolonial critic Gayatri Spivak calls this kind of progression as an "epistemograph". Classification is a manifestation of Western logic and the sequence of main classes is illustrative of the progression that reflects Hegel's epistemograph. DDC and UDC between them represent library classification globally and use a sequence of main classes derived from Hegel and indirectly from Bacon. The lingering consequences of this heritage still create dilemmas in our organization of knowledge.

Source

Paradigms and conceptual systems in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Eleventh International ISKO Conference, 23-26 February 2010 Rome, Italy. Edited by Claudio Gnoli and Fulvio Mazzocchi

0.0016877638 = product of:
  0.018565401 = sum of:
    0.018565401 = weight(_text_:of in 5536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018565401 = score(doc=5536,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 5536, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5536)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)

Abstract

The construction of concepts achieved by the apparently incompatible ideas of essence and context is examined through genre. Essence is defined by essential characteristics: innate, immutable, independent of context. Unlike essences, contexts are fluid, changing with time and location. Genre has the stability of the essential characteristics that define essence and the fluidity of differing circumstances that define context, thus making it effective for the exploration of essence and context. Controlled vocabularies reveal diachronically and synchronically the stable/fluid ambivalence of genre classes. The Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC1, DDC13, DDC23) exhibits stability (and modest fluidity) in the Divisions, the primary reflection of academic disciplines one hierarchical step below the main classes and the development of the standard subdivisions as a slow multi-edition evolution. Genre serves as a lens for us to better understand essences, contexts, and concepts and their manifestations, classes. Rather than being incompatible opposites, essences and contexts complement each other in the definition of concepts. How these abstractions relate to classification is a question both theoretical and practical to our efforts to further knowledge organization.

Content

Beitrag in einem Themenheft: 'Exploring Philosophies of Information'.

0.0016792181 = product of:
  0.0184714 = sum of:
    0.0184714 = weight(_text_:of in 5186) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0184714 = score(doc=5186,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.053998582 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034531306 = queryNorm
        0.34207192 = fieldWeight in 5186, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5186)
  0.09090909 = coord(1/11)

Abstract

The acceptance of a traditional Cartesian epistemology confined Melvil Dewey and his classification to a narrow consideration of knowledge while assuming the necessity of a universal language to describe it. The result is that the DDC marginalizes groups and topics outside of canonical knowledge. A feminist critique of Dewey's introductions to DDC and examples from The Electronic Dewey illustrate this problem. By taking a poststructural perspective, variations becomes theoretically possible and necessary for ethical practice

Source

Knowledge organization and change: Proceedings of the Fourth International ISKO Conference, 15-18 July 1996, Library of Congress, Washington, DC. Ed.: R. Green