Search (31 results, page 1 of 2)

0.06919275 = product of:
  0.1383855 = sum of:
    0.1383855 = sum of:
      0.10319064 = weight(_text_:organization in 1440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.10319064 = score(doc=1440,freq=16.0), product of:
          0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051953442 = queryNorm
          0.55708694 = fieldWeight in 1440, product of:
            4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
              16.0 = termFreq=16.0
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1440)
      0.035194874 = weight(_text_:22 in 1440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035194874 = score(doc=1440,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1819321 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051953442 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1440, 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=1440)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to analyze the Gottlob Frege's (1848-1925) theory of definition as a tool for knowledge organization. The objective was achieved by discussing the theory of definition including: the aims of definition, kinds of definition, condition of correct definition, what is undefinable. Frege indicated the following aims of a defining: (1) to introduce a new word, which has had no precise meaning until then (2) to explain the meaning of a word; (3) to catch a thought. We would like to present three kinds of definitions used by Frege: a contextual definition, a stipulative definition and a piecemeal definition. In the history of theory of definition Frege was the first to have formulated the condition of a correct definition. According to Frege not everything can be defined, what is logically simple cannot have a proper definition Usability of Frege's theory of definition is referred in the case study. Definitions that serve as an example are definitions of 'context'. The term 'context' is used in different situations and meanings in the field of knowledge organization. The paper is rounded by a discussion of how Frege's theory of definition can be useful for knowledge organization. To present G. Frege's theory of definition in view of the need for knowledge organization we shall start with different ranges of knowledge organization.

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

0.059031583 = product of:
  0.11806317 = sum of:
    0.11806317 = sum of:
      0.07582933 = weight(_text_:organization in 3060) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.07582933 = score(doc=3060,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051953442 = queryNorm
          0.40937364 = fieldWeight in 3060, 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=3060)
      0.042233843 = weight(_text_:22 in 3060) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.042233843 = score(doc=3060,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1819321 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051953442 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3060, 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=3060)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Alon Friedman und Richard P. Smiraglia kündigen in ihrem aktuellen Artikel "Nodes and arcs: concept map, semiotics, and knowledge organization" an, eine "empirical demonstration of how the domain [of knowledge organisation] itself understands the meaning of a concept" durchzuführen. Die Klärung des Konzeptbegriffs ist ein begrüßenswertes Vorhaben, das die Autoren in einer empirischen Untersuchung von concept maps (also Konzeptdiagrammen) aus dem Bereich der Wissensorganisation nachvollziehen wollen. Beschränkte sich Friedman 2011 in seinem Artikel "Concept theory and semiotics in knowledge organization" [Fn 01] noch ausschließlich auf Sprache als Medium im Zeichenprozess, bezieht er sich nun auf Visualisierungen als Repräsentationsform und scheint somit seinen Ansatz um den Aspekt der Bildlichkeit zu erweitern. Zumindest erwartet man dies nach der Lektüre der Beschreibung des aktuellen Vorhabens von Friedman und Smiraglia, das - wie die Autoren verkünden - auf einer semiotischen Grundlage durchgeführt worden sei.

Content

Vgl.: http://www.libreas.eu/09treude.htm. Bezug zu: Alon Friedman, Richard P. Smiraglia, (2013): Nodes and arcs: concept map, semiotics, and knowledge organization. In: Journal of Documentation, Vol. 69/1, S.27-48.

Source

LIBREAS: Library ideas. no.22, 2013, S.xx-xx

0.035839137 = product of:
  0.07167827 = sum of:
    0.07167827 = sum of:
      0.0364834 = weight(_text_:organization in 33) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0364834 = score(doc=33,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051953442 = queryNorm
          0.19695997 = fieldWeight in 33, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=33)
      0.035194874 = weight(_text_:22 in 33) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035194874 = score(doc=33,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1819321 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051953442 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 33, 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=33)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2012 13:11:25

Source

Knowledge organization. 39(2012) no.1, S.29-54

0.035839137 = product of:
  0.07167827 = sum of:
    0.07167827 = sum of:
      0.0364834 = weight(_text_:organization in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0364834 = score(doc=5588,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051953442 = queryNorm
          0.19695997 = fieldWeight in 5588, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5588)
      0.035194874 = weight(_text_:22 in 5588) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.035194874 = score(doc=5588,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1819321 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051953442 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 5588, 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=5588)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

To organize information, librarians create structures. These structures grow from a logic that goes back at least as far as Aristotle. It is the basis of classification as we practice it, and thesauri and subject headings have developed from it. Feminist critiques of logic suggest that logic is gendered in nature. This article will explore how these critiques play out in contemporary standards for the organization of information. Our widely used classification schemes embody principles such as hierarchical force that conform to traditional/Aristotelian logic. Our subject heading strings follow a linear path of subdivision. Our thesauri break down subjects into discrete concepts. In thesauri and subject heading lists we privilege hierarchical relationships, reflected in the syndetic structure of broader and narrower terms, over all other relationships. Are our classificatory and syndetic structures gendered? Are there other options? Carol Gilligan's In a Different Voice (1982), Women's Ways of Knowing (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986), and more recent related research suggest a different type of structure for women's knowledge grounded in "connected knowing." This article explores current and potential elements of connected knowing in subject access with a focus on the relationships, both paradigmatic and syntagmatic, between concepts.

Date

11.12.2019 19:00:22

0.02553838 = product of:
  0.05107676 = sum of:
    0.05107676 = product of:
      0.10215352 = sum of:
        0.10215352 = weight(_text_:organization in 2822) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10215352 = score(doc=2822,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051953442 = queryNorm
            0.5514879 = fieldWeight in 2822, 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=2822)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez.in: Knowledge organization 23(1996) no.2, S.116 (E. Mater)

0.025276441 = product of:
  0.050552882 = sum of:
    0.050552882 = product of:
      0.101105765 = sum of:
        0.101105765 = weight(_text_:organization in 170) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.101105765 = score(doc=170,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051953442 = queryNorm
            0.5458315 = fieldWeight in 170, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=170)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper present an alternative approach to knowledge organization based on semiotic reasoning. The semantic distance between domain specific terminology and KOS is analyzed by means of their different sign systems. It is argued that a faceted approach may provide the means needed to minimize the gap between knowledge domains and KOS.

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.10

Source

Knowledge organization for a global learning society: Proceedings of the 9th International ISKO Conference, 4-7 July 2006, Vienna, Austria. Hrsg.: G. Budin, C. Swertz u. K. Mitgutsch

0.02463641 = product of:
  0.04927282 = sum of:
    0.04927282 = product of:
      0.09854564 = sum of:
        0.09854564 = weight(_text_:22 in 880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09854564 = score(doc=880,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1819321 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051953442 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 880, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=880)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Pages

S.9-22

0.021890039 = product of:
  0.043780077 = sum of:
    0.043780077 = product of:
      0.087560154 = sum of:
        0.087560154 = weight(_text_:organization in 3512) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.087560154 = score(doc=3512,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051953442 = queryNorm
            0.47270393 = fieldWeight in 3512, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3512)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

It is argued that concepts are the building blocks of knowledge organizing systems (KOS). Objections to this view are considered and answers are provided. By implication the theory of concepts constitutes the foundation for knowledge organization (KO). The theory of concepts is understood as related to and derived from theories of knowledge. Different theories of knowledge such as empiricism, rationalism, historicism and pragmatism imply different theories of concepts. Such different epistemologies and their associated theories of concepts represent different methodological ideals which probably compete in all knowledge domains. Different approaches to KO are also in fundamental ways associated with different theories of concepts. The paper holds that the historicist and pragmatic theory of concept should be considered most valuable. By implication is it is necessary to know about competing theories in the fields being organized. A further implication of the pragmatic view is that the construction of a KOS must be understood as a way of participating in the discourses in the domain that is being represented.

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

0.021890039 = product of:
  0.043780077 = sum of:
    0.043780077 = product of:
      0.087560154 = sum of:
        0.087560154 = weight(_text_:organization in 292) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.087560154 = score(doc=292,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051953442 = queryNorm
            0.47270393 = fieldWeight in 292, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=292)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to explore the basics of semiotic analysis and concept theory that represent two dominant approaches to knowledge representation, and explore how these approaches are fruitful for knowledge organization. Design/methodology/approach - In particular the semiotic theory formulated by the American philosopher C.S. Peirce and the concept theory formulated by Ingetraut Dahlberg are investigated. The paper compares the differences and similarities between these two theories of knowledge representation. Findings - The semiotic model is a general and unrestricted model of signs and Dahlberg's model is thought from the perspective and demand of better knowledge organization system (KOS) development. It is found that Dahlberg's concept model provides a detailed method for analyzing and representing concepts in a KOS, where semiotics provides the philosophical context for representation. Originality/value - This paper is the first to combine theories of knowledge representation, semiotic and concept theory, within the context of knowledge organization.

0.021116922 = product of:
  0.042233843 = sum of:
    0.042233843 = product of:
      0.08446769 = sum of:
        0.08446769 = weight(_text_:22 in 3904) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08446769 = score(doc=3904,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1819321 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051953442 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 3904, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3904)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Nachrichten für Dokumentation. 22(1971) H.3, S.98-104 (T.1); H.4, S.143-150 (T.2)

0.020638127 = product of:
  0.041276254 = sum of:
    0.041276254 = product of:
      0.08255251 = sum of:
        0.08255251 = weight(_text_:organization in 5193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08255251 = score(doc=5193,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051953442 = queryNorm
            0.44566956 = fieldWeight in 5193, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5193)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.5

Source

Knowledge organization and change: Proceedings of the Fourth International ISKO Conference, 15-18 July 1996, Library of Congress, Washington, DC. Ed.: R. Green

0.018957332 = product of:
  0.037914664 = sum of:
    0.037914664 = product of:
      0.07582933 = sum of:
        0.07582933 = weight(_text_:organization in 4964) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07582933 = score(doc=4964,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051953442 = queryNorm
            0.40937364 = fieldWeight in 4964, 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=4964)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The ontological approach in the development of KOS is an attempt to overcome the limitations of the traditional epistemological approach. Questions raise about the representation and organization of ontologically-oriented KO units, such as BFO universals or ILC phenomena. The study aims to compare the ontological approaches of BFO and ILC using a hermeneutic approach. We found that the differences between the units of the two systems are primarily due to the formal level of abstraction of BFO and the different organizations, namely the grouping of phenomena into ILC classes that represent complex compounds of entities in the BFO approach. In both systems the use of concepts is considered instrumental, although in the ILC they constitute the intersubjective component of the phenomena whereas in BFO they serve to access the entities of reality but are not part of them.

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.17

Source

Knowledge Organization at the Interface. Proceedings of the Sixteenth International ISKO Conference, 2020 Aalborg, Denmark. Ed.: M. Lykke et al

0.018957332 = product of:
  0.037914664 = sum of:
    0.037914664 = product of:
      0.07582933 = sum of:
        0.07582933 = weight(_text_:organization in 5637) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07582933 = score(doc=5637,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051953442 = queryNorm
            0.40937364 = fieldWeight in 5637, 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=5637)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Despite having the principle of provenance as its guiding element, the archival knowledge organization still prescinds, for conceptual purposes, of greater clarity of its object-the archival knowledge-a fundamental aspect for the sedimentation of the archival studies and of its discursive community in the scope of KO. This article aims to define a conceptual framework to archival knowledge by using Dahlberg's concept theory. In this vein, it established the nominal concept or definiendum-archival knowledge-seeking to analyze its real definition, composed by three inseparable definiens: the concept of fonds, the knowledge of documentary form and the knowledge of document creation context. At the end, it demonstrates that archival knowledge can be defined as being a reunion of three indivisible facets in which the archival bond will be contemplated.

Footnote

Beitrag in einem Special Issue on Archival Knowledge Organization

Source

Knowledge organization. 46(2019) no.7, S.522-529

0.0182417 = product of:
  0.0364834 = sum of:
    0.0364834 = product of:
      0.0729668 = sum of:
        0.0729668 = weight(_text_:organization in 1677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0729668 = score(doc=1677,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051953442 = queryNorm
            0.39391994 = fieldWeight in 1677, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1677)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: Knowledge organization. 20(1993) no.1, S.60-61 (O. Sechser)

0.018058361 = product of:
  0.036116723 = sum of:
    0.036116723 = product of:
      0.072233446 = sum of:
        0.072233446 = weight(_text_:organization in 6036) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.072233446 = score(doc=6036,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051953442 = queryNorm
            0.38996086 = fieldWeight in 6036, 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=6036)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The notion of category, from Aristotle and Kant to the present time, has been used as a basic intellectual tool for the analysis of the existence and changeableness of things. Ranganathan was the first to extrapolate the concept into the Theory of Classification, placing it as an essential axis for the logical organization of knowledge and the construction of indexing languages. This paper proposes a conceptual and methodological reexamination of the notion of category from a functional and instrumental perspective, and tries to clarify the essential characters of categories in that context, and their present implications regarding the construction and evaluation of indexing languages

Source

Knowledge organization. 27(2000) nos.1/2, S.4-10

0.018058361 = product of:
  0.036116723 = sum of:
    0.036116723 = product of:
      0.072233446 = sum of:
        0.072233446 = weight(_text_:organization in 58) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.072233446 = score(doc=58,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051953442 = queryNorm
            0.38996086 = fieldWeight in 58, 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=58)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.6

Source

Structures and relations in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the 5th International ISKO-Conference, Lille, 25.-29.8.1998. Ed.: W. Mustafa el Hadi et al

0.018058361 = product of:
  0.036116723 = sum of:
    0.036116723 = product of:
      0.072233446 = sum of:
        0.072233446 = weight(_text_:organization in 69) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.072233446 = score(doc=69,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051953442 = queryNorm
            0.38996086 = fieldWeight in 69, 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=69)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Series

Advances in knowledge organization; vol.6

Source

Structures and relations in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the 5th International ISKO-Conference, Lille, 25.-29.8.1998. Ed.: W. Mustafa el Hadi et al

0.018058361 = product of:
  0.036116723 = sum of:
    0.036116723 = product of:
      0.072233446 = sum of:
        0.072233446 = weight(_text_:organization in 3273) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.072233446 = score(doc=3273,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051953442 = queryNorm
            0.38996086 = fieldWeight in 3273, 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=3273)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Starting from the premise that extant knowledge of the discipline of Knowledge Organization ought to be made accessible by its knowledge units (concepts) this article includes short descriptions of the work of E.Wuester (Austria) and F. Riggs (USA) who both had laid foundations in this field. A noematic concept of knowledge (Diemer 1962, 474) is used for the necessary work to be done. It is shown how a concept-theoretical approach (relying on the characteristics of concepts and their system-building capacity) can be applied for pertinent terminological work. Earlier work in this regard by standardization bodies is mentioned. Seven necessary steps towards accomplishment are outlined.

Source

Knowledge organization. 36(2009) no.2/3, S.169-177

0.015797775 = product of:
  0.03159555 = sum of:
    0.03159555 = product of:
      0.0631911 = sum of:
        0.0631911 = weight(_text_:organization in 2033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0631911 = score(doc=2033,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051953442 = queryNorm
            0.34114468 = fieldWeight in 2033, 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=2033)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.015478596 = product of:
  0.030957192 = sum of:
    0.030957192 = product of:
      0.061914384 = sum of:
        0.061914384 = weight(_text_:organization in 5876) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.061914384 = score(doc=5876,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18523255 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5653565 = idf(docFreq=3399, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051953442 = queryNorm
            0.33425218 = fieldWeight in 5876, 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=5876)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Intended is first of all a preliminary review of the implications that the new approaches to the theory of classification, mainly from cognitive psychology and epistemology may have for information work and research. As a secondary topic the scientific relations existing among information science, epistemology and the cognitive sciences are discussed. Classification is seen as a central activity in all daily and scientific activities, and, of course, of knowledge organization in information services. There is a mutual implication between classification and conceptualization, as the former moves in a natural way to the latter and the best result elaborated for classification is the concept. Research in concept theory is a need for a theory of classification. In this direction it is of outstanding importance to integrate the achievements of 'natural concept formation theory' (NCFT) as an alternative approach to conceptualization different from the traditional one of logicians and problem solving researchers. In conclusion both approaches are seen as being complementary: the NCFT approach being closer to the user and the logical one being more suitable for experts, including 'expert systems'

Source

Knowledge organization. 20(1993) no.3, S.126-132