Search (55 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × author_ss:"Hjoerland, B."
  1. Hjoerland, B.: Theories of knowledge organization - theories of knowledge (2017) 0.08 
    0.08174196 = product of:
  0.16348392 = sum of:
    0.16348392 = sum of:
      0.114211105 = weight(_text_:organization in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.114211105 = score(doc=3494,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051953442 = queryNorm
          0.6165823 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
            3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
              10.0 = termFreq=10.0
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
      0.04927282 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04927282 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1819321 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051953442 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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) 0.06 
    0.062280294 = product of:
  0.12456059 = sum of:
    0.12456059 = sum of:
      0.08936571 = weight(_text_:organization in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08936571 = score(doc=629,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051953442 = queryNorm
          0.48245144 = fieldWeight in 629, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=629)
      0.035194874 = weight(_text_:22 in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035194874 = score(doc=629,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1819321 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051953442 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 629, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=629)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 40(2013) no.1, S.11-27
  3. Hjoerland, B.: Table of contents (ToC) (2022) 0.05 
    0.054080836 = product of:
  0.10816167 = sum of:
    0.10816167 = sum of:
      0.0729668 = weight(_text_:organization in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0729668 = score(doc=1096,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051953442 = queryNorm
          0.39391994 = fieldWeight in 1096, 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=1096)
      0.035194874 = weight(_text_:22 in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035194874 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1819321 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051953442 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1096, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1096)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    A table of contents (ToC) is a kind of document representation as well as a paratext and a kind of finding device to the document it represents. TOCs are very common in books and some other kinds of documents, but not in all kinds. This article discusses the definition and functions of ToC, normative guidelines for their design, and the history and forms of ToC in different kinds of documents and media. A main part of the article is about the role of ToC in information searching, in current awareness services and as items added to bibliographical records. The introduction and the conclusion focus on the core theoretical issues concerning ToCs. Should they be document-oriented or request-oriented, neutral, or policy-oriented, objective, or subjective? It is concluded that because of the special functions of ToCs, the arguments for the request-oriented (policy-oriented, subjective) view are weaker than they are in relation to indexing and knowledge organization in general. Apart from level of granularity, the evaluation of a ToC is difficult to separate from the evaluation of the structuring and naming of the elements of the structure of the document it represents.
    Content
    Vgl.: https://www.nomos-elibrary.de/10.5771/0943-7444-2022-2/ko-knowledge-organization-jahrgang-49-2022-heft-2?page=1.
    Date
    18.11.2023 13:47:22
    Series
    Reviews of concepts in knowledge organization
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 49(2022) no.2, S.98 - 120
  4. Hjoerland, B.: Classical databases and knowledge organisation : a case for Boolean retrieval and human decision-making during search (2014) 0.05 
    0.049192987 = product of:
  0.098385975 = sum of:
    0.098385975 = sum of:
      0.0631911 = weight(_text_:organization in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0631911 = score(doc=1398,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051953442 = queryNorm
          0.34114468 = fieldWeight in 1398, 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=1398)
      0.035194874 = weight(_text_:22 in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035194874 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1819321 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051953442 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1398, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1398)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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.
    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. Hjoerland, B.: ¬The importance of theories of knowledge : indexing and information retrieval as an example (2011) 0.04 
    0.04300696 = product of:
  0.08601392 = sum of:
    0.08601392 = sum of:
      0.043780077 = weight(_text_:organization in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043780077 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051953442 = queryNorm
          0.23635197 = fieldWeight in 4359, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4359)
      0.042233843 = weight(_text_:22 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042233843 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1819321 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051953442 = 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)
    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
  6. Nicolaisen, J.; Hjoerland, B.: ¬A rejoinder to Beghtol (2004) (2004) 0.03 
    0.03159555 = product of:
  0.0631911 = sum of:
    0.0631911 = product of:
      0.1263822 = sum of:
        0.1263822 = weight(_text_:organization in 3006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1263822 = score(doc=3006,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051953442 = queryNorm
            0.68228936 = fieldWeight in 3006, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3006)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Footnote
    Bezugnahme auf: Beghtol, C.: Response to Hjoerland and Nicolaisen. In: Knowledge organization. 31(2004) no.1, S.62-63 sowie: Hjoerland, B., J. Nicolaisen: Scientific and scholarly classifications are not "naïve": a comment to Beghtol (2003). In: Knowledge organization. 31(2004) no.1, S.55-61.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 31(2004) no.3, S.199-201
  7. Albrechtsen, H.; Hjoerland, B.: Information seeking and knowledge organization : the presentation of a new book (1997) 0.03 
    0.031278 = product of:
  0.062556 = sum of:
    0.062556 = product of:
      0.125112 = sum of:
        0.125112 = weight(_text_:organization in 310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.125112 = score(doc=310,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051953442 = queryNorm
            0.675432 = fieldWeight in 310, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=310)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Recently, a new book on knowledge organization has been published by Greenwood Press. The title is 'Information seeking and subject representation: an activity-theoretical approach to information science'. This book presents a new general theory for information science and knowledge organization, based on a theory of information seeking. The author is Dr. Birger Hjørland, Royal School of Library and Information Science. In 1994, he presented his work on theory for KO at the 3rd International ISKO conference in Copenhagen. The book aims to provide both a new understanding for the foundations of information science and knowledge organization, and to provide new directions in research and teaching within these fields. KO (Hanne Albrechtsen) has interviewed Birger HjÝrland in Copenhagen about his views on knowledge organization and subject representation
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 24(1997) no.3, S.136-144
  8. Hjoerland, B.: Knowledge organization = Information organization? (2012) 0.03 
    0.028957801 = product of:
  0.057915602 = sum of:
    0.057915602 = product of:
      0.115831204 = sum of:
        0.115831204 = weight(_text_:organization in 639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.115831204 = score(doc=639,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051953442 = queryNorm
            0.62532854 = fieldWeight in 639, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=639)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Are the terms information organization (IO), organization of information (OI) and information architecture (IA) synonyms for knowledge organization (KO)? This study uses bibliometric methods, among others, to determine some relations between these terms and their meanings. Apparently the data shows that these terms should not be considered synonyms because each of the terms IO, OI, IA and KO produce a different set of high ranked authors, journals and papers. In many cases the terms are, however, used interchangeably (and thus indicating synonymity) and it is argued that the underlying theoretical principles are identical but that the different terms tend to be applied in different contexts: KO in the library context; IA in the web-context and IO and OI in more unspecified ways.
    Series
    Advances in knowledge organization; vol.13
    Source
    Categories, contexts and relations in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Twelfth International ISKO Conference 6-9 August 2012, Mysore, India. Eds.: Neelameghan, A. u. K.S. Raghavan
  9. Hjoerland, B.: Fundamentals of knowledge organization (2003) 0.03 
    0.02579766 = product of:
  0.05159532 = sum of:
    0.05159532 = product of:
      0.10319064 = sum of:
        0.10319064 = weight(_text_:organization in 3025) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10319064 = score(doc=3025,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051953442 = queryNorm
            0.55708694 = fieldWeight in 3025, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3025)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Source
    Tendencias de investigación en organización del conocimient: IV Cologuio International de Ciencas de la Documentación , VI Congreso del Capitulo Espanol de ISKO = Trends in knowledge organization research. Eds.: J.A. Frias u. C. Travieso
  10. Hjoerland, B.: Subject representation and information seeking : contributions to a theory based on the theory of knowledge (1993) 0.03 
    0.02553838 = product of:
  0.05107676 = sum of:
    0.05107676 = product of:
      0.10215352 = sum of:
        0.10215352 = weight(_text_:organization in 7555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10215352 = score(doc=7555,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051953442 = queryNorm
            0.5514879 = fieldWeight in 7555, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7555)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Footnote
    [Dissertation]. - Zusammenfassung in: Knowledge organization 21(1994) no.2, S.94-98
  11. Hjoerland, B.: Information (2023) 0.03 
    0.02553838 = product of:
  0.05107676 = sum of:
    0.05107676 = product of:
      0.10215352 = sum of:
        0.10215352 = weight(_text_:organization in 1118) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10215352 = score(doc=1118,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051953442 = queryNorm
            0.5514879 = fieldWeight in 1118, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1118)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article presents a brief history of the term "information" and its different meanings, which are both important and difficult because the different meanings of the term imply whole theories of knowledge. The article further considers the relation between "information" and the concepts "matter and energy", "data", "sign and meaning", "knowledge" and "communication". It presents and analyses the influence of information in information studies and knowledge organization and contains a presentation and critical analysis of some compound terms such as "information need", "information overload" and "information retrieval", which illuminate the use of the term information in information studies. An appendix provides a chronological list of definitions of information.
    Content
    Vgl.: https://www.nomos-elibrary.de/10.5771/0943-7444-2023-1/ko-knowledge-organization-jahrgang-50-2023-heft-1.
    Series
    Reviews of concepts in knowledge organization
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 50(2023) no.1, S.47 - 79
  12. Hjoerland, B.: Terminology (2023) 0.03 
    0.02553838 = product of:
  0.05107676 = sum of:
    0.05107676 = product of:
      0.10215352 = sum of:
        0.10215352 = weight(_text_:organization in 1122) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10215352 = score(doc=1122,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051953442 = queryNorm
            0.5514879 = fieldWeight in 1122, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1122)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article introduces the field of terminology, which often considers the Austrian engineer Eugen Wüster as its founder in the 1930s, although important principles go back in time, in particular to 18th and 19th century botanists, zoologists and chemists. The contributions of Wüster are presented, as well as the alternative theories, with their criticism of Wüster's position, which came to influence the field after 1990. The article further suggests that domain-analytic studies based on epistemological studies of knowledge domains seems to have been overlooked. The relations between terminology and knowledge organization are addressed, and closer cooperation between the two fields is called for.
    Content
    Vgl.: https://www.nomos-elibrary.de/10.5771/0943-7444-2023-2/ko-knowledge-organization-jahrgang-50-2023-heft-2.
    Series
    Reviews of concepts in knowledge organization
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 50(2023) no.2, S.111 - 127
  13. Hjoerland, B.: ¬The controversy over the concept of information : a rejoinder to Professor Bates (2009) 0.02 
    0.024596494 = product of:
  0.049192987 = sum of:
    0.049192987 = sum of:
      0.03159555 = weight(_text_:organization in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03159555 = score(doc=2748,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051953442 = queryNorm
          0.17057234 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
      0.017597437 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.017597437 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1819321 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051953442 = queryNorm
          0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    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."
    Date
    22. 3.2009 18:13:27
  14. Hjoerland, B.: What is Knowledge Organization (KO)? (2008) 0.02 
    0.02447381 = product of:
  0.04894762 = sum of:
    0.04894762 = product of:
      0.09789524 = sum of:
        0.09789524 = weight(_text_:organization in 2131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09789524 = score(doc=2131,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051953442 = queryNorm
            0.5284991 = fieldWeight in 2131, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2131)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Knowledge Organization (KO) is about activities such as document description, indexing and classification performed in libraries, databases, archives etc. These activities are done by librarians, archivists, subject specialists as well as by computer algorithms. KO as a field of study is concerned with the nature and quality of such knowledge organizing processes (KOP) as well as the knowledge organizing systems (KOS) used to organize documents, document representations and concepts. There exist different historical and theoretical approaches to and theories about KO, which are related to different views of knowledge, cognition, language, and social organization. Each of these approaches tends to answer the question: "What is knowledge organization?" differently. LIS professionals have often concentrated on applying new technology and standards, and may not have seen their work as involving interpretation and analysis of meaning. That is why library classification has been criticized for a lack of substantive intellectual content. Traditional human-based activities are increasingly challenged by computer-based retrieval techniques. It is appropriate to investigate the relative contributions of different approaches; the current challenges make it imperative to reconsider this understanding. This paper offers an understanding of KO based on an explicit theory of knowledge.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 35(2008) nos.2/3, S.86-101
  15. Araújo, P.C. de; Gutierres Castanha, R.C.; Hjoerland, B.: Citation indexing and indexes (2021) 0.02 
    0.02447381 = product of:
  0.04894762 = sum of:
    0.04894762 = product of:
      0.09789524 = sum of:
        0.09789524 = weight(_text_:organization in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09789524 = score(doc=444,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051953442 = queryNorm
            0.5284991 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    A citation index is a bibliographic database that provides citation links between documents. The first modern citation index was suggested by the researcher Eugene Garfield in 1955 and created by him in 1964, and it represents an important innovation to knowledge organization and information retrieval. This article describes citation indexes in general, considering the modern citation indexes, including Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Crossref, Dimensions and some special citation indexes and predecessors to the modern citation index like Shepard's Citations. We present comparative studies of the major ones and survey theoretical problems related to the role of citation indexes as subject access points (SAP), recognizing the implications to knowledge organization and information retrieval. Finally, studies on citation behavior are presented and the influence of citation indexes on knowledge organization, information retrieval and the scientific information ecosystem is recognized.
    Series
    Reviews of Concepts in Knowledge Organization
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 48(2021) no.1, S.72-101
  16. Hjoerland, B.: Political versus apolitical epistemologies in knowledge organization (2020) 0.02 
    0.024131501 = product of:
  0.048263002 = sum of:
    0.048263002 = product of:
      0.096526004 = sum of:
        0.096526004 = weight(_text_:organization in 24) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.096526004 = score(doc=24,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051953442 = queryNorm
            0.52110714 = fieldWeight in 24, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=24)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Section 1 raises the issue of this article: whether knowledge organization systems (KOS) and knowledge organization processes (KOP) are neutral or political by nature and whether it is a fruitful ideal that they should be neutral. These questions are embedded in the broader issue of scientific and scholarly research methods and their philosophical assumptions: what kinds of methods and what epistemological assumptions lie behind the construction of KOS (and research in general)? Section 2 presents and discusses basic approaches and epistemologies and their status in relation to neutrality. Section 3 offers a specific example from feminist scholarship in order to clearly demonstrate that methodologies that often claim to be or are considered apolitical represent subjectivity disguised as objectivity. It contains four subsections: 3.1 Feminist views on History, 3.2 Psychology, 3.3 Knowledge Organization, and 3.4. Epistemology. Overall, feminist scholarship has argued that methodologies, claiming neutrality but supporting repression of groups of people should be termed epistemological violence and they are opposed to social, critical, and pragmatic epistemologies that reflect the interaction between science and the greater society. Section 4 discusses the relation between the researchers' (and indexers') political attitudes and their paradigms/indexing. Section 5 considers the contested nature of epistemological labels, and Section 6 concludes that the question of whose interest a specific KOS, algorithm, or information system is serving should always be at the forefront in information studies and knowledge organization (KO).
    Content
    Part of a special issue: The politics of knowledge organization, Part 2; guest editors: Robert D. Montoya and Gregory H. Leazer. DOI:10.5771/0943-7444-2020-6-461.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 47(2020) no.6, S.461-485
  17. Hjoerland, B.: Education in knowledge organization (KO) (2023) 0.02 
    0.024131501 = product of:
  0.048263002 = sum of:
    0.048263002 = product of:
      0.096526004 = sum of:
        0.096526004 = weight(_text_:organization in 1124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.096526004 = score(doc=1124,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051953442 = queryNorm
            0.52110714 = fieldWeight in 1124, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1124)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    This article provides analyses, describes dilemmas, and suggests way forwards in the teaching of knowl­edge organization (KO). The general assumption of the article is that theoretical problems in KO must be the point of departure for teaching KO. Section 2 addresses the teaching of practical, applied and professional KO, focusing on learning about specific knowl­edge organization systems (KOS), specific standards, and specific methods for organizing knowl­edge, but provides arguments for not isolating these aspects from theoretical issues. Section 3 is about teaching theoretical and academic KO, in which the focus is on examining the bases on which KOSs and knowl­edge organization processes such as classifying and indexing are founded. This basically concerns concepts and conceptual relations and should not be based on prejudices about the superiority of either humans or computers for KO. Section 4 is about the study of education in KO, which is considered important because it is about how the field is monitoring itself and about how it should be shaping its own future. Section 5 is about the role of the ISKO Encyclopedia of Knowl­edge Organization in education of KO, emphasizing the need for an interdisciplinary source that may help improve the conceptual clarity in the field. The conclusion suggests some specific recommendations for curricula in KO based on the author's view of KO.
    Content
    Vgl.: https://www.nomos-elibrary.de/10.5771/0943-7444-2023-3/ko-knowledge-organization-jahrgang-50-2023-heft-3.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 50(2023) no.3, S.160 - 181
  18. Hjoerland, B.: Deliberate bias in knowledge organization? (2008) 0.02 
    0.022341428 = product of:
  0.044682857 = sum of:
    0.044682857 = product of:
      0.08936571 = sum of:
        0.08936571 = weight(_text_:organization in 2510) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08936571 = score(doc=2510,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051953442 = queryNorm
            0.48245144 = fieldWeight in 2510, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2510)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Content
    "Bias" is normally understood as a negatively loaded word, as something to be avoided or minimized, for example, in statistics or in knowledge organization. Recently Melanie Feinberg suggested, however, that "if we cannot eliminate bias, then we should instead attempt to be more responsible about it and explicitly decide on and defend the perspectives represented in information systems". This view is linked to related views: That knowledge organization is too much concerned with information retrieval and too much described in the mode of scientific discovery, as opposed to the mode of artifact design: "From the literary warrant of Hulme to the terminological warrant of the Classification Research Group (CRG), to Hjorland's domain analysis, the classificationist seems like one who documents and compiles, and not one who actively shapes design." This paper examines these claims, which may be understood as questions about subjectivity and objectivity in classification and about positivism versus pragmatism in research. Is KO an objective and neutral activity? Can it be? Should it be? A dominant view has been that knowledge and KO should be understood as a passive reflection øf an external order. This has been termed the mirror metaphor of knowledge and is related to empiricism and positivism. The opposite view which is in accordance with both Feinberg and Hjorland - states that knowledge organization should be functional and thus reflecting given goals, purposes and values. It is related to pragmatism in philosophy.
    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
  19. Hjoerland, B.: Theories of knowledge organization - theories of knowledge (2013) 0.02 
    0.022341428 = product of:
  0.044682857 = sum of:
    0.044682857 = product of:
      0.08936571 = sum of:
        0.08936571 = weight(_text_:organization in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08936571 = score(doc=789,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051953442 = queryNorm
            0.48245144 = fieldWeight in 789, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=789)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Any ontological theory commits us to accept and classify a number of phenomena in a more or less specific way-and vice versa: a classification tends to reveal the theoretical outlook of its creator. Objects and their descriptions and relations are not just "given," but determined by theories. Knowledge is fallible, and consensus is rare. By implication, knowledge organization has to consider different theories/views and their foundations. Bibliographical classifications depend on subject knowledge and on the same theories as corresponding scientific and scholarly classifications. Some classifications are based on logical distinctions, others on empirical examinations, and some on mappings of common ancestors or on establishing functional criteria. To evaluate a classification is to involve oneself in the research which has produced the given classification. Because research is always based more or less on specific epistemological ideals (e.g., empiricism, rationalism, historicism, or pragmatism), the evaluation of classification includes the evaluation of the epistemological foundations of the research on which given classifications have been based. The field of knowledge organization itself is based on different approaches and traditions such as user-based and cognitive views, facet-analytical views, numeric taxonomic approaches, bibliometrics, and domain-analytic approaches. These approaches and traditions are again connected to epistemological views, which have to be considered. Only the domain-analytic view is fully committed to exploring knowledge organization in the light of subject knowledge and substantial scholarly theories.
    Content
    Adapted from the Keynote Presentation, March 19, 2013, at the 13th Meeting of the German ISKO (International Society for Knowledge Organization), Potsdam. Vgl.: http://www.ergon-verlag.de/isko_ko/downloads/ko_40_2013_3_c.pdf.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 40(2013) no.3, S.169-181
  20. Hjoerland, B.; Hartel, J.: Afterword: ontological, epistemological and sociological dimensions of domains (2003) 0.02 
    0.022116886 = product of:
  0.044233773 = sum of:
    0.044233773 = product of:
      0.088467546 = sum of:
        0.088467546 = weight(_text_:organization in 3014) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.088467546 = score(doc=3014,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051953442 = queryNorm
            0.47760257 = fieldWeight in 3014, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3014)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Domains are basically constituted of three kinds of theories and concepts: (1) ontological theories and concepts about the objects of human activity; (2) epistemological theories and concepts about knowledge and the ways to obtain knowledge, implying methodological principles about the ways objects are investigated; and (3) sociological concepts about the groups of people concerned with the objects. There are complicated relations between these elements. Basic theories about those relationships are, for example, forms of philosophical realism and social constructivism. In this paper these concepts and theories are introduced, and their implications for knowledge organization outlined, with illustrations drawn from this special issue of Knowledge Organization.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 30(2003) nos.3/4, S.239-245

Authors

Years

Types

  • a 51
  • el 5
  • d 1
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications