Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Dousa, T.M."
  1. Dousa, T.M.: Categories and the architectonics of system in Julius Otto Kaiser's method of systematic indexing (2014) 0.05
    0.054080836 = product of:
      0.10816167 = sum of:
        0.10816167 = sum of:
          0.0729668 = weight(_text_:organization in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.0729668 = score(doc=1418,freq=8.0), product of:
              0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051953442 = queryNorm
              0.39391994 = fieldWeight in 1418, product of:
                2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                  8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1418)
          0.035194874 = weight(_text_:22 in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.035194874 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.1819321 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051953442 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1418, 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=1418)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Categories, or concepts of high generality representing the most basic kinds of entities in the world, have long been understood to be a fundamental element in the construction of knowledge organization systems (KOSs), particularly faceted ones. Commentators on facet analysis have tended to foreground the role of categories in the structuring of controlled vocabularies and the construction of compound index terms, and the implications of this for subject representation and information retrieval. Less attention has been paid to the variety of ways in which categories can shape the overall architectonic framework of a KOS. This case study explores the range of functions that categories took in structuring various aspects of an early analytico-synthetic KOS, Julius Otto Kaiser's method of Systematic Indexing (SI). Within SI, categories not only functioned as mechanisms to partition an index vocabulary into smaller groupings of terms and as elements in the construction of compound index terms but also served as means of defining the units of indexing, or index items, incorporated into an index; determining the organization of card index files and the articulation of the guide card system serving as a navigational aids thereto; and setting structural constraints to the establishment of cross-references between terms. In all these ways, Kaiser's system of categories contributed to the general systematicity of SI.
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol. 14
    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
  2. Dousa, T.M.: ¬The simple and the complex in E. C. Richardson's theory of classification : observations on an early KO model of the relationship between ontology and epistemology (2010) 0.05
    0.049192987 = product of:
      0.098385975 = sum of:
        0.098385975 = sum of:
          0.0631911 = weight(_text_:organization in 3509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.0631911 = score(doc=3509,freq=6.0), product of:
              0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051953442 = queryNorm
              0.34114468 = fieldWeight in 3509, product of:
                2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                  6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3509)
          0.035194874 = weight(_text_:22 in 3509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.035194874 = score(doc=3509,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.1819321 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051953442 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3509, 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=3509)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    In light of ongoing debates about ontological vs. epistemological approaches to knowledge organization (KO), this paper examines E. C. Richardson's treatment of ontology and epistemology in his theory of classification. According to Richardson, there is a natural order of things in the world accessible to human cognition, which may be expressed in two classificatory orders: evolutionary classification, which ranges classes of things from the most simple to the most complex, and logical classification, which ranges classes of things in the inverse order, from the most complex to the most simple. Evolutionary classification reflects ontological order and logical classification reflects epistemological order: both are faces of a single natural order. Such a view requires adherence to a representationalist, or, in Hjorland's (2008) terms, positivist understanding of epistemology, wherein human knowledge faithfully mirrors the structure of the external world. Richardson's harmonization of ontology and epistemology will find little favor among proponents of the currently fashionable pragmatist approach to KO. Nevertheless, it constitutes an early version of what Gnoli (2004) terms a naturalistic epistemology, which, once deepened and clarified, offers the best prospects for an explicit expression of both the ontological and epistemological dimensions of knowledge within a single classification of general scope.
    Pages
    S.15-22
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol.12
    Source
    Paradigms and conceptual systems in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Eleventh International ISKO Conference, 23-26 February 2010 Rome, Italy. Edited by Claudio Gnoli and Fulvio Mazzocchi
  3. Dousa, T.M.; Ibekwe-SanJuan, F.: Epistemological and methodological eclecticism in the construction of knowledge organization systems (KOSs) : the case of analytico-synthetic KOSs (2014) 0.05
    0.049192987 = product of:
      0.098385975 = sum of:
        0.098385975 = sum of:
          0.0631911 = weight(_text_:organization in 1417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.0631911 = score(doc=1417,freq=6.0), product of:
              0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051953442 = queryNorm
              0.34114468 = fieldWeight in 1417, product of:
                2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                  6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1417)
          0.035194874 = weight(_text_:22 in 1417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.035194874 = score(doc=1417,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.1819321 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051953442 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1417, 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=1417)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol. 14
    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. Dousa, T.M.: Classificatory structure and the evaluation of document classifications : the case of constitutive classification (2014) 0.05
    0.046709694 = product of:
      0.09341939 = sum of:
        0.09341939 = sum of:
          0.065263495 = weight(_text_:organization in 1424) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.065263495 = score(doc=1424,freq=10.0), product of:
              0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051953442 = queryNorm
              0.35233274 = fieldWeight in 1424, product of:
                3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                  10.0 = termFreq=10.0
                3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1424)
          0.028155897 = weight(_text_:22 in 1424) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.028155897 = score(doc=1424,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.1819321 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051953442 = queryNorm
              0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1424, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1424)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Some scholars argue that certain classificatory structures possess inherent social-semantic values and that the desirability (or lack thereof) of these values should form a basis for evaluating the classificatory goodness of such structures. Others hold that it is possible to distinguish between the structural properties of a given classificatory structure and the semantic content (and values) of the classification in which it is used, and that the classificatory goodness of a given structural form is best evaluated by its capacity to support effectively the organization of re-sources in a given context. This paper illustrates the second, "functionalist" position by means of a historical case study examining the contrasting evaluations of a single structural form - namely, the flat (a)hierarchical structure known as constitutive classification - by two early pioneers of knowledge organization, Julius Otto Kaiser and James Duff Brown. Both men knew of the use of constitutive classification for the organization of documents and were aware of its affordances, yet formed highly different opinions of it: Kaiser, a special librarian who sought to classify documents by documentary form in business offices and business libraries, endorsed it, whil Brown, a public librarian concerned with subject-based classification of books, rejected it. In both cases, it was the functional capacity (or lack thereof) of constitutive classification to enable an adequate classification of documents with respect to a given semantic content and in a certain context that determined the evaluation of its structural form. This example suggests that structural form is analytically separable from semantic context and social context and that it is its functional alignment with the latter, rather than any supposedly inherent socio-semantic values, that has, in the past, served as a norm for evaluating the goodness of classificatory structures.
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol. 14
    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
  5. Dousa, T.M.: Classical pragmatism and its varieties : on a pluriform metatheoretical perspective for knowledge organization (2010) 0.02
    0.018957332 = product of:
      0.037914664 = sum of:
        0.037914664 = product of:
          0.07582933 = sum of:
            0.07582933 = weight(_text_:organization in 3357) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.07582933 = score(doc=3357,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051953442 = queryNorm
                0.40937364 = fieldWeight in 3357, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3357)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Pragmatism is a metatheoretical perspective within knowledge organization (KO) that derives from an American philosophical tradition active since the late 19th century. Its core feature is commitment to the evaluation of the adequacy of concepts and beliefs through the empirical test of practice: this entails epistemological antifoundationalism, fallibilism, contingency, social embeddedness, and pluralism. This article reviews three variants of Pragmatism that have been historically influential in philosophy-Charles Sanders Pierce's scientifically oriented pragmaticism, William James's subjectivist practicalism, and John Dewey's socially oriented instrumentalism-and indicates points of contact between them and KO theories propounded by Henry E. Bliss, Jesse H. Shera, and Birger Hjørland, respectively. KO applications of classical Pragmatism have tended to converge toward a socially pluralist model characteristic of Dewey. Recently, Richard Rorty's post-modern brand of Neopragmatism has found adherents within KO: whether it provides a more advantageous metatheoretical framework than classical Pragmatism remains to be seen.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 37(2010) no.1, S.65-71
  6. Smiraglia, R.P.; Heuvel, C. van den; Dousa, T.M.: Interactions between elementary structures in universes of knowledge (2011) 0.02
    0.018957332 = product of:
      0.037914664 = sum of:
        0.037914664 = product of:
          0.07582933 = sum of:
            0.07582933 = weight(_text_:organization in 4812) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.07582933 = score(doc=4812,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051953442 = queryNorm
                0.40937364 = fieldWeight in 4812, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4812)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Contrasts in 20th century classification theory relate to a transition from a universe of "knowledge" system towards one of "concepts' Initiatives to develop a Simple Knowledge Organization Systems (SKOS) standard based on classification schemes and taxonomies within the framework of the Semantic Web (SW) are attempts to bridge the gap. Current knowledge organization systems (KOS) seem to reinforce "syntactics" at the expense of semantics. We claim that all structure is syntactic but knowledge structures need to have a semantic component as well. Therefore we consider classifications as artificial languages. The Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) constitutes a natural language-independent notation system that allows for mediating between concepts and knowledge systems. We discuss an elementary theory of knowledge organization based on the structure of knowledge rather than on the content of documents. Semantics becomes not a matter of synonymous concepts, but rather of coordinating knowledge structures. The interactions between these systems represent interactions between different universes of knowledge or concepts.
  7. Dousa, T.M.: Whither pragmatism in knowledge organization? : Classical pragmatism vs. neopragmatism as KO metatheories (2010) 0.02
    0.0182417 = product of:
      0.0364834 = sum of:
        0.0364834 = product of:
          0.0729668 = sum of:
            0.0729668 = weight(_text_:organization in 3517) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0729668 = score(doc=3517,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051953442 = queryNorm
                0.39391994 = fieldWeight in 3517, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3517)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Pragmatism has often been invoked as a fruitful metatheoretical perspective for knowledge organization (KO). Historically, the form of Pragmatism serving as a philosophical resource for KO has been classical pragmatism (CP). More recently, some KO researchers have begun appealing to another form of pragmatism known as neopragmatism (NP) as the metatheoretical basis of their work. This paper examines two key philosophical differences between CP and NP and inquires whether these differences are sufficient to make a practical difference for KO metatheory. Analysis of past applications of CP and NP principles to theories of classification design and to questions of research methodology within KO indicates that, to date, the metatheoretical consequences of CP and NP have been, for the most part, virtually indistinguishable: with respect to those issues, at least, the philosophical differences between CP and NP are not substantive enough to make a difference. With regards to the problem of how to organize KO as an interdisciplinary field, however, the philosophical resources of CP may offer a more integrative metatheoretical vision than those of NP.
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol.12
    Source
    Paradigms and conceptual systems in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Eleventh International ISKO Conference, 23-26 February 2010 Rome, Italy. Edited by Claudio Gnoli and Fulvio Mazzocchi
  8. Dousa, T.M.: E. Wyndham Hulme's classification of the attributes of books : on an early model of a core bibliographical entity (2017) 0.02
    0.016315874 = product of:
      0.032631747 = sum of:
        0.032631747 = product of:
          0.065263495 = sum of:
            0.065263495 = weight(_text_:organization in 4141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.065263495 = score(doc=4141,freq=10.0), product of:
                0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051953442 = queryNorm
                0.35233274 = fieldWeight in 4141, product of:
                  3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                    10.0 = termFreq=10.0
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4141)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Modelling bibliographical entities is a prominent activity within knowledge organization today. Current models of bibliographic entities, such as Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and the Bibliographic Framework (BIBFRAME), take inspiration from data-modelling methods developed by computer scientists from the mid-1970s on. Thus, it would seem that the modelling of bibliographic entities is an activity of very recent vintage. However, it is possible to find examples of bibliographical models from earlier periods of knowledge organization. The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to one such model, outlined by the early twentiethcentury British classification theorist E. Wyndham Hulme in his essay on "Principles of Book Classification" (1911-1912). There, Hulme set forth a classification of various attributes by which books can be classified. These he first divided into "accidental" and "inseparable" attributes. Accidental attributes were subdivided into edition-level and copy-level attributes and inseparable attitudes, into "physical" and "non-physical" attributes. Comparison of Hulme's classification of attributes with those of FRBR and BIBFRAME 2.0 reveals that the different classes of attributes in Hulme's classification correspond to groups of attributes associated with different bibliographical entities in those models. These later models assume the existence of different bibliographic entities in an abstract hierarchy among which attributes are distributed, whereas Hulme posited only a single entity-the book-whose various aspects he clustered into different classes of attributes. Thus, Hulme's model offers an interesting alternative to current assumptions about how to conceptualize the relationship between attributes and entities in the bibliographical universe.
    Content
    Beitrag eines Special Issue: Select Papers from ISKO Chapter Conferences 2017 ISKO-Canada/US: Sixth North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization: Visualizing Knowledge Organization: Bringing Focus to Abstract Realities, June 15-17, 2017, Champaign, IL, USA .
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 44(2017) no.8, S.592-604
  9. Dousa, T.M.: Empirical observation, rational structures, and pragmatist aims : epistemology and method in Julius Otto Kaiser's theory of systematic indexing (2008) 0.02
    0.015478596 = product of:
      0.030957192 = sum of:
        0.030957192 = product of:
          0.061914384 = sum of:
            0.061914384 = weight(_text_:organization in 2508) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.061914384 = score(doc=2508,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051953442 = queryNorm
                0.33425218 = fieldWeight in 2508, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2508)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol.11
    Source
    Culture and identity in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Tenth International ISKO Conference 5-8 August 2008, Montreal, Canada. Ed. by Clément Arsenault and Joseph T. Tennis
  10. Dousa, T.M.: E. Wyndham Hulme's classification of the attributes of books : On an early model of a core bibliographical entity (2017) 0.01
    0.014593359 = product of:
      0.029186718 = sum of:
        0.029186718 = product of:
          0.058373436 = sum of:
            0.058373436 = weight(_text_:organization in 3859) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.058373436 = score(doc=3859,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051953442 = queryNorm
                0.31513596 = fieldWeight in 3859, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3859)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Modelling bibliographical entities is a prominent activity within knowledge organization today. Current models of bibliographic entities, such as Functional Requirements for Bibliographical Records (FRBR) and the Bibliographic Framework (BIBFRAME), take inspiration from data - modelling methods developed by computer scientists from the mid - 1970s on. Thus, it would seem that the modelling of bibliographic entities is an activity of very recent vintage. However, it is possible to find examples of bibliographical models from earlier periods of knowledge organization. The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to one such model, outlined by the early 20th - century British classification theorist E. Wyndham Hulme in his essay on "Principles of Book Classification" (1911 - 1912). There, Hulme set forth a classification of various attributes by which books can conceivably be classified. These he first divided into accidental and inseparable attributes. Accidental attributes were subdivided into edition - level and copy - level attributes and inseparable attitudes, into physical and non - physical attributes. Comparison of Hulme's classification of attributes with those of FRBR and BIBFRAME 2.0 reveals that the different classes of attributes in Hulme's classification correspond to groups of attributes associated with different bibliographical entities in those models. These later models assume the existence of different bibliographic entities in an abstraction hierarchy among which attributes are distributed, whereas Hulme posited only a single entity - the book - , whose various aspects he clustered into different classes of attributes. Thus, Hulme's model offers an interesting alternative to current assumptions about how to conceptualize the relationship between attributes and entities in the bibliographical universe.
    Content
    Beitrag bei: NASKO 2017: Visualizing Knowledge Organization: Bringing Focus to Abstract Realities. The sixth North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization (NASKO 2017), June 15-16, 2017, in Champaign, IL, USA.