Search (74 results, page 1 of 4)

  • × author_ss:"Hjoerland, B."
  1. Hjoerland, B.: Theories of knowledge organization - theories of knowledge (2017) 0.07 
    0.07246362 = product of:
  0.10869542 = sum of:
    0.021452487 = weight(_text_:information in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021452487 = score(doc=3494,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051966466 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
    0.08724293 = sum of:
      0.03795776 = weight(_text_:systems in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03795776 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.159702 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051966466 = queryNorm
          0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
      0.04928517 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04928517 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1819777 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051966466 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Pages
    S.22-36
    Source
    Theorie, Semantik und Organisation von Wissen: Proceedings der 13. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und dem 13. Internationalen Symposium der Informationswissenschaft der Higher Education Association for Information Science (HI) Potsdam (19.-20.03.2013): 'Theory, Information and Organization of Knowledge' / Proceedings der 14. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und Natural Language & Information Systems (NLDB) Passau (16.06.2015): 'Lexical Resources for Knowledge Organization' / Proceedings des Workshops der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) auf der SEMANTICS Leipzig (1.09.2014): 'Knowledge Organization and Semantic Web' / Proceedings des Workshops der Polnischen und Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) Cottbus (29.-30.09.2011): 'Economics of Knowledge Production and Organization'. Hrsg. von W. Babik, H.P. Ohly u. K. Weber
  2. Hjoerland, B.: User-based and cognitive approaches to knowledge organization : a theoretical analysis of the research literature (2013) 0.07 
    0.065517284 = product of:
  0.09827592 = sum of:
    0.008846856 = weight(_text_:information in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008846856 = score(doc=629,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051966466 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 629, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=629)
    0.089429066 = sum of:
      0.054225378 = weight(_text_:systems in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.054225378 = score(doc=629,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.159702 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051966466 = queryNorm
          0.339541 = fieldWeight in 629, product of:
            2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
              8.0 = termFreq=8.0
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=629)
      0.03520369 = weight(_text_:22 in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03520369 = score(doc=629,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1819777 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051966466 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    In the 1970s and 1980s, forms of user-based and cognitive approaches to knowledge organization came to the forefront as part of the overall development in library and information science and in the broader society. The specific nature of user-based approaches is their basis in the empirical studies of users or the principle that users need to be involved in the construction of knowledge organization systems. It might seem obvious that user-friendly systems should be designed on user studies or user involvement, but extremely successful systems such as Apple's iPhone, Dialog's search system and Google's PageRank are not based on the empirical studies of users. In knowledge organization, the Book House System is one example of a system based on user studies. In cognitive science the important WordNet database is claimed to be based on psychological research. This article considers such examples. The role of the user is often confused with the role of subjectivity. Knowledge organization systems cannot be objective and must therefore, by implication, be based on some kind of subjectivity. This subjectivity should, however, be derived from collective views in discourse communities rather than be derived from studies of individuals or from the study ofabstract minds.
    Date
    22. 2.2013 11:49:13
  3. Hjoerland, B.: Classical databases and knowledge organisation : a case for Boolean retrieval and human decision-making during search (2014) 0.05 
    0.053340062 = product of:
  0.080010094 = sum of:
    0.017693711 = weight(_text_:information in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017693711 = score(doc=1398,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051966466 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 1398, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1398)
    0.06231638 = sum of:
      0.027112689 = weight(_text_:systems in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027112689 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.159702 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051966466 = queryNorm
          0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 1398, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1398)
      0.03520369 = weight(_text_:22 in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03520369 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1819777 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051966466 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    This paper considers classical bibliographic databases based on the Boolean retrieval model (for example MEDLINE and PsycInfo). This model is challenged by modern search engines and information retrieval (IR) researchers, who often consider Boolean retrieval as a less efficient approach. This speech examines this claim and argues for the continued value of Boolean systems, which implies two further issues: (1) the important role of human expertise in searching (expert searchers and "information literacy") and (2) the role of knowledge organization (KO) in the design and use of classical databases, including controlled vocabularies and human indexing. An underlying issue is the kind of retrieval system for which one should aim. It is suggested that Julian Warner's (2010) differentiation between the computer science traditions, aiming at automatically transforming queries into (ranked) sets of relevant documents, and an older library-orientated tradition aiming at increasing the "selection power" of users seems important. The Boolean retrieval model is important in order to provide users with the power to make informed searches and have full control over what is found and what is not found. These issues may also have important implications for the maintenance of information science and KO as research fields as well as for the information profession as a profession in its own right.
    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
  4. Hjoerland, B.: ¬The controversy over the concept of information : a rejoinder to Professor Bates (2009) 0.04 
    0.040554296 = product of:
  0.060831442 = sum of:
    0.029673254 = weight(_text_:information in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029673254 = score(doc=2748,freq=90.0), product of:
        0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051966466 = queryNorm
        0.32527196 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
          9.486833 = tf(freq=90.0), with freq of:
            90.0 = termFreq=90.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
    0.03115819 = sum of:
      0.013556344 = weight(_text_:systems in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.013556344 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.159702 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051966466 = queryNorm
          0.08488525 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
      0.017601846 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.017601846 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1819777 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051966466 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Content
    "This letter considers some main arguments in Professor Bates' article (2008), which is part of our former debate (Bates, 2005,2006; Hjoerland, 2007). Bates (2008) does not write much to restate or enlarge on her theoretical position but is mostly arguing about what she claims Hjorland (2007) ignored or misinterpreted in her two articles. Bates (2008, p. 842) wrote that my arguments did not reflect "a standard of coherence, consistency, and logic that is expected of an argument presented in a scientific journal." My argumentation below will refute this statement. This controversy is whether information should be understood as a subjective phenomenon (alone), as an objective phenomenon (alone), or as a combined objective and a subjective phenomenon ("having it both ways"). Bates (2006) defined "information" (sometimes, e.g., termed "information 1," p. 1042) as an objective phenomenon and "information 2" as a subjective phenomenon. However, sometimes the term "information" is also used as a synonym for "information 2," e.g., "the term information is understood to refer to one or both senses" (p. 1042). Thus, Professor Bates is not consistent in using the terminology that she herself introduces, and confusion in this controversy may be caused by Professor Bates' ambiguity in her use of the term "information." Bates (2006, p. 1033) defined information as an objective phenomenon by joining a definition by Edwin Parker: "Information is the pattern of organization of matter and energy." The argument in Hjoerland (2007) is, by contrast, that information should be understood as a subjective phenomenon all the way down: That neither the objective definition of information nor "having it both ways" is fruitful. This is expressed, for example, by joining Karpatschof's (2000) definition of information as a physical signal relative to a certain release mechanism, which implies that information is not something objective that can be understood independently of an observer or independently of other kinds of mechanism that are programmed to be sensitive to specific attributes of a signal: There are many differences in the world, and each of them is potentially informative in given situations. Regarding Parker's definition, "patterns of organization of matter and energy" are no more than that until they inform somebody about something. When they inform somebody about something, they may be considered information. The following quote is part of the argumentation in Bates (2008): "He contrasts my definition of information as 'observer-independent' with his position that information is 'situational' and adds a list of respected names on the situational side (Hjoerland, 2007, p. 1448). What this sentence, and much of the remainder of his argument, ignores is the fact that my approach accounts for both an observer-independent and a contextual, situational sense of information." Yes, it is correct that I mostly concentrated on refuting Bates' objective definition of information. It is as if Bates expects an overall appraisal of her work rather than providing a specific analysis of the points on which there are disagreements. I see Bates' "having it both ways": a symptom of inconsistence in argumentation.
    Bates (2008, p. 843) further writes about her definition of information: "This is the objectivist foundation, the rock bottom minimum of the meaning of information; it informs both articles throughout." This is exactly the focus of my disagreement. If we take a word in a language, it is understood as both being a "pattern of organization of matter and energy" (e.g., a sound) and carrying meaning. But the relation between the physical sign and its meaning is considered an arbitrary relation in linguistics. Any physical material has the potential of carrying any meaning and to inform somebody. The physical stuff in itself is not information until it is used as a sign. An important issue in this debate is whether Bates' examples demonstrate the usefulness of her own position as opposed to mine. Her example about information seeking concerning navigation and how "the very layout of the ship and the design of the bridge promoted the smooth flow of information from the exterior of the ship to the crew and among the crewmembers" (Bates, 2006, pp. 1042-1043) does not justify Bates' definition of information as an objective phenomenon. The design is made for a purpose, and this purpose determines how information should be defined in this context. Bates' view on "curatorial sciences" (2006, p. 1043) is close to Hjorland's suggestions (2000) about "memory institutions," which is based on the subjective understanding of information. However, she does not relate to this proposal, and she does not argue how the objective understanding of information is related to this example. I therefore conclude that Bates' practical examples do not support her objective definition of information, nor do they support her "having it both ways." Finally, I exemplify the consequences of my understanding of information by showing how an archaeologist and a geologist might represent the same stone differently in information systems. Bates (2008, p. 843) writes about this example: "This position is completely consistent with mine." However, this "consistency" was not recognized by Bates until I published my objections and, therefore, this is an indication that my criticism was needed. I certainly share Professor Bates (2008) advice to read her original articles: They contain much important stuff. I just recommend that the reader ignore the parts that argue about information being an objective phenomenon."
    References Bates, M.J. (2005). Information and knowledge: An evolutionary framework for information science. Information Research, 10(4), paper 239. Available at http://InformationR.net/ir/10-4/paper239.html. Bates, M.J. (2006). Fundamental forms of information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), 1033-1045. Bates, M.J. (2008). Hjorland's critique of Bates' work on defining information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(5), 842-844. Hjoerland, B. (2000). Documents, memory institutions, and information science. Journal of Documentation, 56, 27-41. Hjoerland, B. (2007). Information: Objective or subjective-situational? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(10), 1448-1456. Karpatschof, B. (2000). Human activity. Contributions to the anthropological sciences from a perspective of activity theory. Copenhagen: Dansk Psykologisk Forlag. Retrieved May 14, 2007, from http://informationr.net/ir/ 12-3/Karpatschof/Karp00.html.
    Date
    22. 3.2009 18:13:27
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.3, S.643
    Theme
    Information
  5. Hjoerland, B.: Theory and metatheory of information science : a new interpretation (1998) 0.04 
    0.040038176 = product of:
  0.06005726 = sum of:
    0.04107838 = weight(_text_:information in 4723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04107838 = score(doc=4723,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051966466 = queryNorm
        0.45029256 = fieldWeight in 4723, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4723)
    0.01897888 = product of:
      0.03795776 = sum of:
        0.03795776 = weight(_text_:systems in 4723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03795776 = score(doc=4723,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.159702 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051966466 = queryNorm
            0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 4723, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4723)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Epistemological theories of information science have a fundamental impact on theories about users, their cognition and information seeking behaviour, on subject analysis, and on classification. They also have a fundamental impact on information retrieval, on the understanding of 'information', on the view of documents and their role in communication, on information selection, on theories about the functions of information systems and on the role of information professionals. Asserts that information science must be based on epistemological knowledge, which avoids blind alleys and is not outdated. Shows limitations in the dominant approaches to information science and proposes alternative viewpoints
    Theme
    Information
  6. Hjoerland, B.: Concept theory (2009) 0.04 
    0.035812993 = product of:
  0.053719487 = sum of:
    0.02340658 = weight(_text_:information in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02340658 = score(doc=3461,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051966466 = queryNorm
        0.256578 = fieldWeight in 3461, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3461)
    0.030312907 = product of:
      0.060625814 = sum of:
        0.060625814 = weight(_text_:systems in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.060625814 = score(doc=3461,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.159702 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051966466 = queryNorm
            0.37961838 = fieldWeight in 3461, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3461)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    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.
    Footnote
    Vgl.: Szostak, R.: Comment on Hjørland's concept theory in: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.5, S. 1076-1077 und die Erwiderung darauf von B. Hjoerland (S.1078-1080)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.8, S.1519-1536
    Theme
    Information
  7. Hyldegaard, J.; Morch, F.; Hjoerland, B.: Information overload : den nye flaskehals i referencearbejdet (1993) 0.03 
    0.032878187 = product of:
  0.049317278 = sum of:
    0.030338395 = weight(_text_:information in 8297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030338395 = score(doc=8297,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051966466 = queryNorm
        0.3325631 = fieldWeight in 8297, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8297)
    0.01897888 = product of:
      0.03795776 = sum of:
        0.03795776 = weight(_text_:systems in 8297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03795776 = score(doc=8297,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.159702 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051966466 = queryNorm
            0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 8297, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8297)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Report on the conference on Information Authority and user knowledge held in Boras Apr 93 and arranged by Gothenburg University's Centre for Library and Information Science and Studies and Boras Library High School. The main speaker, Patrick Wilson, spoke on consequences of information overload and rapid conceptual change. Johan Olaisen's talk on 'toward a theory of clarified subjectivity' started like Wilson's with the problem that users of information systems drown in trivialities. Lena Olsson's dealt with library work in practice and commented on the connection between cognitive authority and professional status of librarians. Discussions centered on the definition of information authority, and on overload as the driving force in IF development
  8. Hjoerland, B.: ¬The importance of theories of knowledge : indexing and information retrieval as an example (2011) 0.03 
    0.029907215 = product of:
  0.04486082 = sum of:
    0.023738606 = weight(_text_:information in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023738606 = score(doc=4359,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051966466 = queryNorm
        0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 4359, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4359)
    0.021122215 = product of:
      0.04224443 = sum of:
        0.04224443 = weight(_text_:22 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04224443 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1819777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051966466 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    A recent study in information science (IS), raises important issues concerning the value of human indexing and basic theories of indexing and information retrieval, as well as the use of quantitative and qualitative approaches in IS and the underlying theories of knowledge informing the field. The present article uses L&E as the point of departure for demonstrating in what way more social and interpretative understandings may provide fruitful improvements for research in indexing, knowledge organization, and information retrieval. The artcle is motivated by the observation that philosophical contributions tend to be ignored in IS if they are not directly formed as criticisms or invitations to dialogs. It is part of the author's ongoing publication of articles about philosophical issues in IS and it is intended to be followed by analyzes of other examples of contributions to core issues in IS. Although it is formulated as a criticism of a specific paper, it should be seen as part of a general discussion of the philosophical foundation of IS and as a support to the emerging social paradigm in this field.
    Date
    17. 3.2011 19:22:55
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.1, S.72-77
  9. Hjoerland, B.; Christensen, F.S.: Work tasks and socio-cognitive relevance : a specific example (2002) 0.03 
    0.028105645 = product of:
  0.042158466 = sum of:
    0.017515881 = weight(_text_:information in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017515881 = score(doc=5237,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051966466 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 5237, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5237)
    0.024642585 = product of:
      0.04928517 = sum of:
        0.04928517 = weight(_text_:22 in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04928517 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1819777 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051966466 = 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)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Hjorland and Christensen provide an analyzed example in order to clarify their views on relevance. A physician's information seeking focus in dealing with mental illness is seen as largely determined by his social cognitive state, with complexity increasing as the individual's understanding of the topic deviates from mainstream thinking. The physician's viewpoint on the disease will influence terminology utilized, and an eclectic attitude toward the disease will result in more broad criteria of relevance. Relevance is seen as a tool toward meeting an individual goal.
    Date
    21. 7.2006 14:11:22
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 53(2002) no.11, S.960-965
  10. Hjoerland, B.: Arguments for philosophical realism in library and information science (2004) 0.03 
    0.026731273 = product of:
  0.04009691 = sum of:
    0.026540566 = weight(_text_:information in 832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026540566 = score(doc=832,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051966466 = queryNorm
        0.2909321 = fieldWeight in 832, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=832)
    0.013556344 = product of:
      0.027112689 = sum of:
        0.027112689 = weight(_text_:systems in 832) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027112689 = score(doc=832,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.159702 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051966466 = queryNorm
            0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 832, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=832)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    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.
    Footnote
    Artikel in einem Themenheft: The philosophy of information
    Theme
    Information
  11. Capurro, R.; Hjoerland, B.: ¬The concept of information (2002) 0.03 
    0.026654992 = product of:
  0.039982487 = sum of:
    0.03184868 = weight(_text_:information in 5079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03184868 = score(doc=5079,freq=72.0), product of:
        0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051966466 = queryNorm
        0.34911853 = fieldWeight in 5079, product of:
          8.485281 = tf(freq=72.0), with freq of:
            72.0 = termFreq=72.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5079)
    0.008133806 = product of:
      0.016267613 = sum of:
        0.016267613 = weight(_text_:systems in 5079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016267613 = score(doc=5079,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.159702 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051966466 = queryNorm
            0.1018623 = fieldWeight in 5079, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5079)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    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.
    Discussions about the concept of information in other disciplines are very important for IS because many theories and approaches in IS have their origins elsewhere (see the section "Information as an Interdisciplinary Concept" in this chapter). The epistemological concept of information brings into play nonhuman information processes, particularly in physics and biology. And vice versa: the psychic and sociological processes of selection and interpretation may be considered using objective parameters, leaving aside the semantic dimension, or more precisely, by considering objective or situational parameters of interpretation. This concept can be illustrated also in physical terms with regard to release mechanisms, as we suggest. Our overview of the concept of information in the natural sciences as well as in the humanities and social sciences cannot hope to be comprehensive. In most cases, we can refer only to fragments of theories. However, the reader may wish to follow the leads provided in the bibliography. Readers interested primarily in information science may derive most benefit from the section an "Information in Information Science," in which we offer a detailed explanation of diverse views and theories of information within our field; supplementing the recent ARIST chapter by Cornelius (2002). We show that the introduction of the concept of information circa 1950 to the domain of special librarianship and documentation has in itself had serious consequences for the types of knowledge and theories developed in our field. The important question is not only what meaning we give the term in IS, but also how it relates to other basic terms, such as documents, texts, and knowledge. Starting with an objectivist view from the world of information theory and cybernetics, information science has turned to the phenomena of relevance and interpretation as basic aspects of the concept of information. This change is in no way a turn to a subjectivist theory, but an appraisal of different perspectives that may determine in a particular context what is being considered as informative, be it a "thing" (Buckland, 1991b) or a document. Different concepts of information within information science reflect tensions between a subjective and an objective approach. The concept of interpretation or selection may be considered to be the bridge between these two poles. It is important, however, to consider the different professions involved with the interpretation and selection of knowledge. The most important thing in IS (as in information policy) is to consider information as a constitutive forte in society and, thus, recognize the teleological nature of information systems and services (Braman, 1989).
    Source
    Annual review of information science and technology. 37(2003), S.343-411
    Theme
    Information
  12. Hjoerland, B.: Information retrieval and knowledge organization : a perspective from the philosophy of science 0.03 
    0.025000047 = product of:
  0.03750007 = sum of:
    0.021232454 = weight(_text_:information in 206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021232454 = score(doc=206,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051966466 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 206, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=206)
    0.016267613 = product of:
      0.032535225 = sum of:
        0.032535225 = weight(_text_:systems in 206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032535225 = score(doc=206,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.159702 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051966466 = queryNorm
            0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 206, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=206)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    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.
    Source
    Information 12(2021) 26 S
  13. Hjoerland, B.; Nicolaisen, J.: Scientific and scholarly classifications are not "naïve" : a comment to Begthol (2003) (2004) 0.02 
    0.024576854 = product of:
  0.03686528 = sum of:
    0.017693711 = weight(_text_:information in 3023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017693711 = score(doc=3023,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051966466 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 3023, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3023)
    0.019171566 = product of:
      0.03834313 = sum of:
        0.03834313 = weight(_text_:systems in 3023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03834313 = score(doc=3023,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.159702 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051966466 = queryNorm
            0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 3023, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3023)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Relationships between Knowledge Organization in LIS and Scientific & Scholarly Classifications In her paper "Classification for Information Retrieval and Classification for Knowledge Discovery: Relationships between 'Professional' and 'Naive' Classifications" (KO v30, no.2, 2003), Beghtol outlines how Scholarly activities and research lead to classification systems which subsequently are disseminated in publications which are classified in information retrieval systems, retrieved by the users and again used in Scholarly activities and so on. We think this model is correct and that its point is important. What we are reacting to is the fact that Beghtol describes the Classifications developed by scholars as "naive" while she describes the Classifications developed by librarians and information scientists as "professional." We fear that this unfortunate terminology is rooted in deeply ar chored misjudgments about the relationships between scientific and Scholarly classification an the one side and LIS Classifications an the other. Only a correction of this misjudgment may give us in the field of knowledge organization a Chance to do a job that is not totally disrespected and disregarded by the rest of the intellectual world.
    Footnote
    Bezugnahme auf: Beghtol, C.: Classification for information retrieval and classification for knowledge discovery: relationships between 'professional' and 'naive' classifications" in: Knowledge organization. 30(2003), no.2, S.64-73; vgl. dazu auch die Erwiderung von C. Beghtol in: Knowledge organization. 31(2004) no.1, S.62-63.
  14. Hjoerland, B.: Are relations in thesauri "context-free, definitional, and true in all possible worlds"? (2015) 0.02 
    0.024576854 = product of:
  0.03686528 = sum of:
    0.017693711 = weight(_text_:information in 2033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017693711 = score(doc=2033,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051966466 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 2033, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2033)
    0.019171566 = product of:
      0.03834313 = sum of:
        0.03834313 = weight(_text_:systems in 2033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03834313 = score(doc=2033,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.159702 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051966466 = queryNorm
            0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 2033, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2033)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Much of the literature of information science and knowledge organization has accepted and built upon Elaine Svenonius's (2004) claim that "paradigmatic relationships are those that are context-free, definitional, and true in all possible worlds" (p. 583). At the same time, the literature demonstrates a common understanding that paradigmatic relations are the kinds of semantic relations used in thesauri and other knowledge organization systems (including equivalence relations, hierarchical relations, and associative relations). This understanding is problematic and harmful because it directs attention away from the empirical and contextual basis for knowledge-organizing systems. Whether A is a kind of X is certainly not context-free and definitional in empirical sciences or in much everyday information. Semantic relations are theory-dependent and, in biology, for example, a scientific revolution has taken place in which many relations have changed following the new taxonomic paradigm named "cladism." This biological example is not an exception, but the norm. Semantic relations including paradigmatic relations are not a priori but are dependent on subject knowledge, scientific findings, and paradigms. As long as information scientists and knowledge organizers isolate themselves from subject knowledge, knowledge organization cannot possibly progress.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.7, S.1367-1373
  15. Hjoerland, B.: Facet analysis : the logical approach to knowledge organization (2013) 0.02 
    0.023994414 = product of:
  0.03599162 = sum of:
    0.012511344 = weight(_text_:information in 2720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012511344 = score(doc=2720,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051966466 = queryNorm
        0.13714671 = fieldWeight in 2720, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2720)
    0.023480278 = product of:
      0.046960555 = sum of:
        0.046960555 = weight(_text_:systems in 2720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046960555 = score(doc=2720,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.159702 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051966466 = queryNorm
            0.29405114 = fieldWeight in 2720, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2720)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    The facet-analytic paradigm is probably the most distinct approach to knowledge organization within Library and Information Science, and in many ways it has dominated what has be termed "modern classification theory". It was mainly developed by S.R. Ranganathan and the British Classification Research Group, but it is mostly based on principles of logical division developed more than two millennia ago. Colon Classification (CC) and Bliss 2 (BC2) are among the most important systems developed on this theoretical basis, but it has also influenced the development of other systems, such as the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) and is also applied in many websites. It still has a strong position in the field and it is the most explicit and "pure" theoretical approach to knowledge organization (KO) (but it is not by implication necessarily also the most important one). The strength of this approach is its logical principles and the way it provides structures in knowledge organization systems (KOS). The main weaknesses are (1) its lack of empirical basis and (2) its speculative ordering of knowledge without basis in the development or influence of theories and socio-historical studies. It seems to be based on the problematic assumption that relations between concepts are a priori and not established by the development of models, theories and laws.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 49(2013) no.2, S.545-557
  16. Hjoerland, B.: Classical databases and knowledge organization : a case for boolean retrieval and human decision-making during searches (2015) 0.02 
    0.02348442 = product of:
  0.03522663 = sum of:
    0.021670282 = weight(_text_:information in 2124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021670282 = score(doc=2124,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051966466 = queryNorm
        0.23754507 = fieldWeight in 2124, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2124)
    0.013556344 = product of:
      0.027112689 = sum of:
        0.027112689 = weight(_text_:systems in 2124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027112689 = score(doc=2124,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.159702 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051966466 = queryNorm
            0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 2124, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2124)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    This paper considers classical bibliographic databases based on the Boolean retrieval model (such as MEDLINE and PsycInfo). This model is challenged by modern search engines and information retrieval (IR) researchers, who often consider Boolean retrieval a less efficient approach. The paper examines this claim and argues for the continued value of Boolean systems, and suggests two further considerations: (a) the important role of human expertise in searching (expert searchers and "information literate" users) and (b) the role of library and information science and knowledge organization (KO) in the design and use of classical databases. An underlying issue is the kind of retrieval system for which one should aim. Warner's (2010) differentiation between the computer science traditions and an older library-oriented tradition seems important; the former aim to transform queries automatically into (ranked) sets of relevant documents, whereas the latter aims to increase the "selection power" of users. The Boolean retrieval model is valuable in providing users with the power to make informed searches and have full control over what is found and what is not. These issues may have significant implications for the maintenance of information science and KO as research fields as well as for the information profession as a profession in its own right.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.8, S.1559-1575
  17. Hjoerland, B.: Comments on the articles and proposals for further work (2005) 0.02 
    0.022414736 = product of:
  0.033622105 = sum of:
    0.010616227 = weight(_text_:information in 4409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010616227 = score(doc=4409,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051966466 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4409, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4409)
    0.023005879 = product of:
      0.046011757 = sum of:
        0.046011757 = weight(_text_:systems in 4409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046011757 = score(doc=4409,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.159702 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051966466 = queryNorm
            0.28811008 = fieldWeight in 4409, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4409)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this afterword is to examine which questions have been illuminated in the present issue and which theoretical problems still need to be addressed. Design/methodology/approach - Examines articles in this issue. Findings - Many epistemological views, e.g. social constructivism, critical theory, feminist epistemology, postmodernism and systems theory, need to be considered more deeply within library and information science (LIS). For some of the other epistemologies such as phenomenology and (post)structuralism there is still a need for deeper explorations of their potential contributions. Finally eclecticism is discussed as one way of coping with different theories in a field. Originality/value - The value of this afterword is to contribute to future reflections and debates concerning the philosophical basis of LIS and the specific contributions of specific systems of thought.
  18. Hjoerland, B.: Theories are knowledge organizing systems (KOS) (2015) 0.02 
    0.022414736 = product of:
  0.033622105 = sum of:
    0.010616227 = weight(_text_:information in 2193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010616227 = score(doc=2193,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051966466 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2193, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2193)
    0.023005879 = product of:
      0.046011757 = sum of:
        0.046011757 = weight(_text_:systems in 2193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.046011757 = score(doc=2193,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.159702 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051966466 = queryNorm
            0.28811008 = fieldWeight in 2193, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2193)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    The notion "theory" is a neglected concept in the field of information science and knowledge organization (KO) as well as generally in philosophy and in many other fields, although there are exceptions from this general neglect (e.g., the so-called "theory theory" in cognitive psychology). This article introduces different conceptions of "theory" and argues that a theory is a statement or a conception, which is considered open to be questioned and which is connected with background assumptions. Theories form interconnected systems of grand, middle rank and micro theories and actions, practices and artifacts are theory-laden. The concept of knowledge organization system (KOS) is briefly introduced and discussed. A theory is a form of KOS and theories are the point of departure of any KOS. It is generally understood in KO that concepts are the units of KOSs, but the theory-dependence of concepts brings theories to the forefront in analyzing concepts and KOSs. The study of theories should therefore be given a high priority within KO concerning the construction and evaluation of KOSs.
  19. Hjoerland, B.; Hartel, J.: Introduction to a Special Issue of Knowledge Organization (2003) 0.02 
    0.021138271 = product of:
  0.031707406 = sum of:
    0.01655095 = weight(_text_:information in 3013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01655095 = score(doc=3013,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051966466 = queryNorm
        0.18142805 = fieldWeight in 3013, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3013)
    0.0151564535 = product of:
      0.030312907 = sum of:
        0.030312907 = weight(_text_:systems in 3013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030312907 = score(doc=3013,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.159702 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051966466 = queryNorm
            0.18980919 = fieldWeight in 3013, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3013)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    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.
    It uncovers the main theoretical influences that have affected the representation of art in systems of knowledge organization such as LCC, DDC, UDC and the Art & Architecture Thesaurus, and it provides a deep basis for evaluating such systems. Knut Tore Abrahamsen's "Indexing of Musical Genres. An Epistemological Perspective" is a modified version of a thesis written at the Royal School of Library and Information Science in Copenhagen. As a thesis it is a major achievement which successfully combines knowledge of music, epistemology, and knowledge organization. This paper may also be seen as an example of how domains can be analyzed and how knowledge organization may be improved in practice. We would like to thank Sanna Talja of the University of Tampere, among other people, for Input an this piece. And now to the rest of the issue: Olof Sundin's "Towards an Understanding of Symbolic Aspects of Professional Information: an Analysis of the Nursing Knowledge Domain" contributes to DA by introducing a deeper understanding of the notion of professions and by uncovering how in some domains, "symbolic" functions of information may be more important than instrumental functions. Rich Gazan's: "Metadata as a Realm of Translation: Merging Knowledge Domains in the Design of an Environmental Information System" demonstrates the problems of merging data collections in interdisciplinary fields, rohen the perceived informational value of different access points varies with disciplinary membership. This is important for the design of systems of metadata. Joe Tennis': "Two Axes of Domains for Domain Analysis" suggests that the notion of domain is underdeveloped in DA. Tennis states, "Hjoerland has provided a hammer, but rohere are the nails?" In addition he raises a question concerning the degree of specialization within a domain. He resolves these issues by proposing two new "axes" to DA. Chaim Zins & David Guttmann's: "Domain Analysis of Social Work: An Example of an Integrated Methodological Approach" represents an empirical approach to the construction of knowledge maps based an representative samples of the literature an social work. In a way, this paper is the most traditional or straightforward approach to knowledge organization in the issue: It suggests a concrete classification based an scientific norms of representation and objectivity.
    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.
  20. Søndergaard, T.F.; Andersen, J.; Hjoerland, B.: Documents and the communication of scientific and scholarly information : revising and updating the UNISIST model (2003) 0.02 
    0.019253034 = product of:
  0.02887955 = sum of:
    0.015323205 = weight(_text_:information in 4452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.015323205 = score(doc=4452,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.09122598 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051966466 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 4452, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4452)
    0.013556344 = product of:
      0.027112689 = sum of:
        0.027112689 = weight(_text_:systems in 4452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027112689 = score(doc=4452,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.159702 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051966466 = queryNorm
            0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 4452, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4452)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    Abstract
    In 1971 UNISIST proposed a model for scientific and technical communication. This model has been widely cited and additional models have been added to the literature. There is a need to bring this model to the focus of information science (IS) research as well as to update and revise it. There are both empirical and theoretical reasons for this need. On the empirical side much has happened in the developments of electronic communication that needs to be considered. From a theoretical point of view the domain-analytic view has proposed that differences between different disciplines and domains should be emphasised. The original model only considered scientific and technical communication as a whole. There is a need both to compare with the humanities and social sciences and to regard internal differences in the sciences. There are also other reasons to reconsider and modify this model today. Offers not only a descriptive model, but also a theoretical perspective from which information systems may be understood and evaluated. In addition to this provides empirical exemplification and proposals for research initiatives.

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 73
  • dk 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 71
  • el 4
  • d 1
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications