Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.037914664 = product of:
  0.07582933 = sum of:
    0.07582933 = product of:
      0.15165865 = sum of:
        0.15165865 = weight(_text_:organization in 2044) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15165865 = score(doc=2044,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051953442 = queryNorm
            0.8187473 = fieldWeight in 2044, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2044)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Knowledge organization. 30(2003) no.1, S.36-37

0.027362548 = product of:
  0.054725096 = sum of:
    0.054725096 = product of:
      0.10945019 = sum of:
        0.10945019 = weight(_text_:organization in 6666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10945019 = score(doc=6666,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051953442 = queryNorm
            0.5908799 = fieldWeight in 6666, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6666)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper argues that traditional theories of classification is based in the modem belief in dualism, and that this belief has led to the use of the concept of universe of knowledge as its main component. In this view knowledge organizations are seen as objective and neutral descriptions of an already there universe of knowledge. The tools provided for this task is mainly drawn from logic and are intended to be used independently of the domain for which the knowledge organization is created. The object is to mirror reality as closely as possible. However, the idea of objectivity and neutrality falls with the rise of the postmodern thought. In a postmodern view of the world facts, truth and knowledge is regarded as fabricated and constructed in particular discourse communities. A postmodern theory of knowledge organization therefore regards knowledge organizations as active constructions of a perceived conception of the particular discourse communities in the company, organization or knowledge fields for which the knowledge organization is intended. Therefore the rules, guidelines and standards for knowledge organization becomes of little interest - what becomes much more important is the interpretative processes in knowledge organization and the cultural and social context of which the knowledge organization is a part

Source

Knowledge: creation, organization and use. Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, 31.10.-4.11.1999. Ed.: L. Woods

0.022116886 = product of:
  0.044233773 = sum of:
    0.044233773 = product of:
      0.088467546 = sum of:
        0.088467546 = weight(_text_:organization in 4553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.088467546 = score(doc=4553,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051953442 = queryNorm
            0.47760257 = fieldWeight in 4553, 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=4553)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

While the organization and representation of information and knowledge have historically been done by professionals, the rise of social media has spread the notion that this can be done more collaboratively. A more collaborative approach would entail a change in the role of professionals and in the goals and values of the systems. This paper explores the notion of authority and the role of professionals in a changing environment where more people participate in the organization and representation of information and knowledge. The paper questions the traditional role of the professionals and argues that systems must be designed to facilitate trust and authority, and that the authority of folksonomies and systems comes from the users' collective interpretations and meaning production.

Source

Knowledge organization. 38(2011) no.2, S.114-122

0.018957332 = product of:
  0.037914664 = sum of:
    0.037914664 = product of:
      0.07582933 = sum of:
        0.07582933 = weight(_text_:organization in 3168) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07582933 = score(doc=3168,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051953442 = queryNorm
            0.40937364 = fieldWeight in 3168, 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=3168)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper explores the knowledge organization landscape in which Hope Olson's numerous contributions to the field are situated. The paper first explores some of the foundational conceptual notions within knowledge organization that today are well accepted. The paper then reviews Hope Olson's contributions to that landscape and places her work in the context of Borges' essay about John Wilkins' project to develop a universal language that would organize and contain all human thought. The paper shows how Hope Olson's work on marginalization and exclusion of specific topics and groups of people in large library classification has unraveled the systemic bias found in all classifications. The paper calls for stronger engagement between scholarship and practice to address marginalization and exclusion in further work on classification systems.

Source

Knowledge organization. 43(2016) no.5, S.324-330

0.018058361 = product of:
  0.036116723 = sum of:
    0.036116723 = product of:
      0.072233446 = sum of:
        0.072233446 = weight(_text_:organization in 1065) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.072233446 = score(doc=1065,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051953442 = queryNorm
            0.38996086 = fieldWeight in 1065, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1065)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper explores the ethics of classification. The paper outlines recent conceptual moves in knowledge organization research and shows that contemporary classification theory is based on a pragmatic understanding of the world. It suggests that unjust statements and assumptions about the world challenge contemporary library classifications and that a proper response is needed. It outlines a framework for the development of ethical classifications based on MacIntyre's practice-based ethical theory. It provides a framework within which editors and managers of library classifications can make ethically sound decisions.

Source

Knowledge organization. 40(2013) no.4, S.242-253

0.016315874 = product of:
  0.032631747 = sum of:
    0.032631747 = product of:
      0.065263495 = sum of:
        0.065263495 = weight(_text_:organization in 2759) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.065263495 = score(doc=2759,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051953442 = queryNorm
            0.35233274 = fieldWeight in 2759, 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=2759)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

1. Introduction Theoretical context independent explanations of classification could enhance the universality of classification research and make knowledge about classification available to settings other than traditional libraries. There is a tremendous need for constructing classificatory structures in a range of settings many of which are far removed from the environment in which classification theory and research has been practiced in the last century and a half. The construction of classificatory structures an the Internet, intranets, and in knowledge management systems has received some attention lately. The question examined here is whether it is possible to create a single theory of classification that applies to the range of contexts in which classificatory structures are applied. The object of this paper is to question the assumption that bibliographic classification theory can resemble scientific theories. It is argued that the context of any classification influences the use and understanding of the classification to such a degree that the classification cannot be understood separate from its context. Furthermore, the development from being a novice classifier or classificationist to becoming an expert is explored. lt is assumed scientific theories must relate as much to the activity of novices as to the activity of experts and that scientific theories explain both what it is that novices do and what experts do. It is argued that expertise is achieved not through a correct application of a classification theory but through experiences and adjustment to a particular context and that the activities of novices are quite distinct from the activities of experts in that experts draws an the context of the situation and that novices do not. 2. Theory of Classification Langridge (1976) provides an account of the principles of constructing knowledge organization systems and the theoretical underpinnings of different approaches. He identifies four principles that have guided construction of knowledge organization systems: 1) ideological, 2) social purpose, 3) scientific, and 4) the disciplines. The ideological principle organizes knowledge according to an ideology that the knowledge organization system serves. Langridge gives the examples of "the Christian schemes of the Middle Ages and the Soviet scheme which substitutes for the Bible and Christianity the works of Marx and Lenin and the 'religion' of communism" (Langridge, 1976, p. 4-5).

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.8

Source

Challenges in knowledge representation and organization for the 21st century: Integration of knowledge across boundaries. Proceedings of the 7th ISKO International Conference Granada, Spain, July 10-13, 2002. Ed.: M. López-Huertas

0.014593359 = product of:
  0.029186718 = sum of:
    0.029186718 = product of:
      0.058373436 = sum of:
        0.058373436 = weight(_text_:organization in 3017) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058373436 = score(doc=3017,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051953442 = queryNorm
            0.31513596 = fieldWeight in 3017, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3017)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Knowledge organization. 31(2004) no.1, S.39-48

0.01289883 = product of:
  0.02579766 = sum of:
    0.02579766 = product of:
      0.05159532 = sum of:
        0.05159532 = weight(_text_:organization in 1921) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05159532 = score(doc=1921,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051953442 = queryNorm
            0.27854347 = fieldWeight in 1921, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1921)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Classification schemes, thesauri, taxonomies, and other controlled vocabularies play important roles in the organization and retrieval of information in many different environments. While the design and construction of controlled vocabularies have been prescribed at the technical level in great detail over the past decades, the methodological level has been somewhat neglected. However, classification research has in recent years focused on developing approaches to the analysis of users, domains, and activities that could produce requirements for the design of controlled vocabularies. Researchers have often argued that the design, construction, and use of controlled vocabularies need to be based on analyses and understandings of the contexts in which these controlled vocabularies function. While one would assume that the growing body of research on human information behavior might help guide the development of controlled vocabularies shed light on these contexts, unfortunately, much of the research in this area is descriptive in nature and of little use for systems design. This paper discusses these trends and outlines a holistic approach that demonstrates how the design of controlled vocabularies can be informed by investigations of people's interactions with information. This approach is based on the Cognitive Work Analysis framework and outlines several dimensions of human-information interactions. Application of this approach will result is a comprehensive understanding of the contexts in which the controlled vocabulary will function and which can be used for the development of for the development of controlled vocabularies.

Source

Knowledge organization. 35(2008) no.1, S.16-29