Search (17 results, page 1 of 1)

0.016179813 = product of:
  0.08089907 = sum of:
    0.08089907 = sum of:
      0.051638294 = weight(_text_:history in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.051638294 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20093648 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04319373 = queryNorm
          0.25698814 = fieldWeight in 1096, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1096)
      0.029260771 = weight(_text_:22 in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.029260771 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15125708 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04319373 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1096, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1096)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

A table of contents (ToC) is a kind of document representation as well as a paratext and a kind of finding device to the document it represents. TOCs are very common in books and some other kinds of documents, but not in all kinds. This article discusses the definition and functions of ToC, normative guidelines for their design, and the history and forms of ToC in different kinds of documents and media. A main part of the article is about the role of ToC in information searching, in current awareness services and as items added to bibliographical records. The introduction and the conclusion focus on the core theoretical issues concerning ToCs. Should they be document-oriented or request-oriented, neutral, or policy-oriented, objective, or subjective? It is concluded that because of the special functions of ToCs, the arguments for the request-oriented (policy-oriented, subjective) view are weaker than they are in relation to indexing and knowledge organization in general. Apart from level of granularity, the evaluation of a ToC is difficult to separate from the evaluation of the structuring and naming of the elements of the structure of the document it represents.

Date

18.11.2023 13:47:22

0.015829664 = product of:
  0.079148315 = sum of:
    0.079148315 = weight(_text_:computers in 206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079148315 = score(doc=206,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22709264 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.257537 = idf(docFreq=625, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04319373 = queryNorm
        0.34852874 = fieldWeight in 206, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.257537 = idf(docFreq=625, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=206)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Information retrieval (IR) is about making systems for finding documents or information. Knowledge organization (KO) is the field concerned with indexing, classification, and representing documents for IR, browsing, and related processes, whether performed by humans or computers. The field of IR is today dominated by search engines like Google. An important difference between KO and IR as research fields is that KO attempts to reflect knowledge as depicted by contemporary scholarship, in contrast to IR, which is based on, for example, "match" techniques, popularity measures or personalization principles. The classification of documents in KO mostly aims at reflecting the classification of knowledge in the sciences. Books about birds, for example, mostly reflect (or aim at reflecting) how birds are classified in ornithology. KO therefore requires access to the adequate subject knowledge; however, this is often characterized by disagreements. At the deepest layer, such disagreements are based on philosophical issues best characterized as "paradigms". No IR technology and no system of knowledge organization can ever be neutral in relation to paradigmatic conflicts, and therefore such philosophical problems represent the basis for the study of IR and KO.

0.013191386 = product of:
  0.06595693 = sum of:
    0.06595693 = weight(_text_:computers in 1124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06595693 = score(doc=1124,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22709264 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.257537 = idf(docFreq=625, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04319373 = queryNorm
        0.29044062 = fieldWeight in 1124, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.257537 = idf(docFreq=625, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1124)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article provides analyses, describes dilemmas, and suggests way forwards in the teaching of knowl­edge organization (KO). The general assumption of the article is that theoretical problems in KO must be the point of departure for teaching KO. Section 2 addresses the teaching of practical, applied and professional KO, focusing on learning about specific knowl­edge organization systems (KOS), specific standards, and specific methods for organizing knowl­edge, but provides arguments for not isolating these aspects from theoretical issues. Section 3 is about teaching theoretical and academic KO, in which the focus is on examining the bases on which KOSs and knowl­edge organization processes such as classifying and indexing are founded. This basically concerns concepts and conceptual relations and should not be based on prejudices about the superiority of either humans or computers for KO. Section 4 is about the study of education in KO, which is considered important because it is about how the field is monitoring itself and about how it should be shaping its own future. Section 5 is about the role of the ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowl­edge Organization in education of KO, emphasizing the need for an interdisciplinary source that may help improve the conceptual clarity in the field. The conclusion suggests some specific recommendations for curricula in KO based on the author's view of KO.

0.0123931905 = product of:
  0.061965954 = sum of:
    0.061965954 = product of:
      0.12393191 = sum of:
        0.12393191 = weight(_text_:history in 1318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.12393191 = score(doc=1318,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20093648 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04319373 = queryNorm
            0.6167716 = fieldWeight in 1318, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1318)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Series

Studies in history and philosophy of science ; 34

0.0105531085 = product of:
  0.05276554 = sum of:
    0.05276554 = weight(_text_:computers in 2290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05276554 = score(doc=2290,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22709264 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.257537 = idf(docFreq=625, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04319373 = queryNorm
        0.2323525 = fieldWeight in 2290, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.257537 = idf(docFreq=625, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2290)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.010223861 = product of:
  0.051119305 = sum of:
    0.051119305 = product of:
      0.10223861 = sum of:
        0.10223861 = weight(_text_:history in 1853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10223861 = score(doc=1853,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20093648 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04319373 = queryNorm
            0.5088106 = fieldWeight in 1853, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1853)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Scholars have uncovered abundant data about the history of the term "information," as well as some of its many combined phrases (e.g., "information science," "information retrieval," and "information technology"). Many other compounds that involve "information" seem, however, not to have a known origin yet. In this article, further information about the phrase "information storage and retrieval" is provided. Knowing the history of terms and their associated concepts is an important prescription against poor terminological phrasing and theoretical confusion.

0.007229361 = product of:
  0.036146805 = sum of:
    0.036146805 = product of:
      0.07229361 = sum of:
        0.07229361 = weight(_text_:history in 1118) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07229361 = score(doc=1118,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20093648 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04319373 = queryNorm
            0.3597834 = fieldWeight in 1118, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1118)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This article presents a brief history of the term "information" and its different meanings, which are both important and difficult because the different meanings of the term imply whole theories of knowledge. The article further considers the relation between "information" and the concepts "matter and energy", "data", "sign and meaning", "knowledge" and "communication". It presents and analyses the influence of information in information studies and knowledge organization and contains a presentation and critical analysis of some compound terms such as "information need", "information overload" and "information retrieval", which illuminate the use of the term information in information studies. An appendix provides a chronological list of definitions of information.

0.0051638293 = product of:
  0.025819147 = sum of:
    0.025819147 = product of:
      0.051638294 = sum of:
        0.051638294 = weight(_text_:history in 6391) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051638294 = score(doc=6391,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20093648 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04319373 = queryNorm
            0.25698814 = fieldWeight in 6391, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6391)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This paper takes a second look at three prevailing main themes in knowledge organization: i) the academic disciplines as the main structural principle; ii) the fiction/non-fiction distinction; and iii) the appropriate unit of analysis in online retrieval systems. The history and origin of bibliographic classification [Dewey, Bliss, Mills, Beghtol] are discussed from the perspective of pragmatist philosophy and social studies of science [Kuhn, Merton, Reich]. Choices of structural principles in different schemes are found to rely on more or less implicit philosophical foundations, ranging from rationalism to pragmatism. It is further shown how the increasing application of faceted structures as basic structural principles in universal classification schemes [DDC, UDC] impose rationalistic principles and structures for knowledge organization which are not in alignment with the development of knowledge in the covered disciplines. Further evidence of rationalism in knowledge organization is the fiction/non-fiction distinction, excluding the important role of artistic resources for, in particular, humanistic research. Finally, for the analysis of appropriate bibliographic unit, it is argued that there is a need to shift towards a semiotic approach, founded on an understanding of intertextuality, rather than applying standard principles of hierarchical decomposition of documents. It is concluded that a change in classification research is needed, founded on a more historical and social understanding of knowledge

0.0051638293 = product of:
  0.025819147 = sum of:
    0.025819147 = product of:
      0.051638294 = sum of:
        0.051638294 = weight(_text_:history in 24) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.051638294 = score(doc=24,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20093648 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04319373 = queryNorm
            0.25698814 = fieldWeight in 24, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=24)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Section 1 raises the issue of this article: whether knowledge organization systems (KOS) and knowledge organization processes (KOP) are neutral or political by nature and whether it is a fruitful ideal that they should be neutral. These questions are embedded in the broader issue of scientific and scholarly research methods and their philosophical assumptions: what kinds of methods and what epistemological assumptions lie behind the construction of KOS (and research in general)? Section 2 presents and discusses basic approaches and epistemologies and their status in relation to neutrality. Section 3 offers a specific example from feminist scholarship in order to clearly demonstrate that methodologies that often claim to be or are considered apolitical represent subjectivity disguised as objectivity. It contains four subsections: 3.1 Feminist views on History, 3.2 Psychology, 3.3 Knowledge Organization, and 3.4. Epistemology. Overall, feminist scholarship has argued that methodologies, claiming neutrality but supporting repression of groups of people should be termed epistemological violence and they are opposed to social, critical, and pragmatic epistemologies that reflect the interaction between science and the greater society. Section 4 discusses the relation between the researchers' (and indexers') political attitudes and their paradigms/indexing. Section 5 considers the contested nature of epistemological labels, and Section 6 concludes that the question of whose interest a specific KOS, algorithm, or information system is serving should always be at the forefront in information studies and knowledge organization (KO).

0.0043816543 = product of:
  0.021908272 = sum of:
    0.021908272 = product of:
      0.043816544 = sum of:
        0.043816544 = weight(_text_:history in 5079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043816544 = score(doc=5079,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20093648 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04319373 = queryNorm
            0.21806167 = fieldWeight in 5079, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5079)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.0040965076 = product of:
  0.020482538 = sum of:
    0.020482538 = product of:
      0.040965077 = sum of:
        0.040965077 = weight(_text_:22 in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040965077 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15125708 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04319373 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

21. 7.2006 14:11:22

0.0040965076 = product of:
  0.020482538 = sum of:
    0.020482538 = product of:
      0.040965077 = sum of:
        0.040965077 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040965077 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15125708 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04319373 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Pages

S.22-36

0.0035112926 = product of:
  0.017556462 = sum of:
    0.017556462 = product of:
      0.035112925 = sum of:
        0.035112925 = weight(_text_:22 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035112925 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15125708 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04319373 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4359, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4359)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

17. 3.2011 19:22:55

0.0029260772 = product of:
  0.014630386 = sum of:
    0.014630386 = product of:
      0.029260771 = sum of:
        0.029260771 = weight(_text_:22 in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029260771 = score(doc=629,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15125708 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04319373 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 629, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=629)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 2.2013 11:49:13

0.0029260772 = product of:
  0.014630386 = sum of:
    0.014630386 = product of:
      0.029260771 = sum of:
        0.029260771 = weight(_text_:22 in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029260771 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15125708 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04319373 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1398, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1398)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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

0.0025819147 = product of:
  0.0129095735 = sum of:
    0.0129095735 = product of:
      0.025819147 = sum of:
        0.025819147 = weight(_text_:history in 3013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025819147 = score(doc=3013,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20093648 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04319373 = queryNorm
            0.12849407 = fieldWeight in 3013, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.6519823 = idf(docFreq=1146, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3013)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

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.

0.0014630386 = product of:
  0.007315193 = sum of:
    0.007315193 = product of:
      0.014630386 = sum of:
        0.014630386 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014630386 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15125708 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04319373 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 3.2009 18:13:27