Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.030111905 = product of:
  0.09033571 = sum of:
    0.09033571 = weight(_text_:resources in 5521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09033571 = score(doc=5521,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.483971 = fieldWeight in 5521, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5521)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Education is a culturally and politically branded domain of knowledge and practice, and education specialists have traditionally remained somewhat isolated, communicating mainly on the general level of "basic educational principles." The expansion of the World Wide Web could change this situation; there exist on the Web a substantial number of education-related resources which have become accessible to international audiences. In this paper, the authors look at how these resources are organized with a view to answering two questions: (1) In a context of global exchanges, are education-related resources available on the Web organized in such a way as to maximize efficiency of identification and retrieval? (2) In virtual libraries with specialized collections on education, do categorization schemes and terminology reflect anything other than local perspectives and systems?

0.028389778 = product of:
  0.08516933 = sum of:
    0.08516933 = weight(_text_:resources in 3958) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08516933 = score(doc=3958,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.45629224 = fieldWeight in 3958, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3958)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Introduction to various classificatory structures currently used to organize and make collections of Web-based resources in education more accessible to educators, education specialists, and the general public. Presentation of other models which could also be useful.

0.015055953 = product of:
  0.045167856 = sum of:
    0.045167856 = weight(_text_:resources in 116) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.045167856 = score(doc=116,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.2419855 = fieldWeight in 116, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=116)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Because of the nature, number, and extreme mobility of resources available on electronic networks, access instruments that will allow information seekers to find relevant Web pages or sites are essential. While virtual libraries without clear collection development policies continue to be established, ad hoc knowledge organization schemes also continue to be conceived and implemented; these so-called innovative classification tools are generally structured around loose categories representing a mix of disciplines, subjects, forms of presentation, and audiences. This paper discusses a few examples of Web-based organization schemes, suggesting that their degree of intuitiveness, user-friendliness and efficiency is very possibly overrated

0.010037302 = product of:
  0.030111905 = sum of:
    0.030111905 = weight(_text_:resources in 2730) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030111905 = score(doc=2730,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18665522 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.051133685 = queryNorm
        0.16132367 = fieldWeight in 2730, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.650338 = idf(docFreq=3122, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2730)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

This paper examines whether a concept's hierarchical level affects the likelihood of its universality across schemes for knowledge representation and knowledge organization. Empirical data an equivalents are drawn from a bilingual thesaurus, a pair of biomedical vocabularies, and two ontologies. Conceptual equivalence across resources occurs significantly more often at the basic level than at subordinate or superordinate levels. Attempts to integrate knowledge representation or knowledge organization tools should concentrate an establishing equivalences at the basic level. 1. Rationale The degree of success attainable in the integration of multiple knowledge representation systems or knowledge organization schemes is constrained by limitations an the universality of human conceptual systems. For example, human languages do not all lexicalize the same set of concepts; nor do they structure (quasi-)equivalent concepts in the same relational patterns (Riesthuis, 2001). As a consequence, even multilingual thesauri designed from the outset from the perspective of multiple languages may routinely include situations where corresponding terms are not truly equivalent (Hudon, 1997, 2001). Intuitively, where inexactness and partialness in equivalence mappings across knowledge representation schemes and knowledge organizations schemes exist, a more difficult retrieval scenario arises than where equivalence mappings reflect full and exact conceptual matches. The question we address in this paper is whether a concept's hierarchical level af ects the likelihood of its universality/full equivalence across schemes for knowledge representation and knowledge organization. Cognitive science research has shown that one particular hierarchical level-called the basic level--enjoys a privileged status (Brown, 1958; Rosch et al., 1976). Our underlying hypothesis is that concepts at the basic level (e.g., apple, shoe, chair) are more likely to match across knowledge representation schemes and knowledge organization schemes than concepts at the superordinate (e.g., fruit, footwear, furniture) or subordinate (e.g., Granny Smith, sneaker, recliner) levels. This hypothesis is consistent with ethnobiological data showing that folk classifications of flora are more likely to agree at the basic level than at superordinate or subordinate levels (Berlin, 1992).

0.007564209 = product of:
  0.022692626 = sum of:
    0.022692626 = product of:
      0.045385253 = sum of:
        0.045385253 = weight(_text_:management in 117) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045385253 = score(doc=117,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.2633291 = fieldWeight in 117, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=117)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Most moving image collections have existed for less than a century, and as we enter the new millennium we observe that the organisation of these collections is still characterized by ad hoc practices. An important stream of research in this area focuses on high-level access to images using methods from library and information science, and using text to create information useful for retrieval. It has been established that common names for objects seen in the image are the key to retrieval in such collections. On a day-to-day basis, those responsible for collection management build indexing vocabularies, creating terms as necessary, and often structuring them loosely into a thesaurus. Discussions with moving image collection librarians have led us to believe that there may be an optimal number of common names a thesaurus for managing general collections of moving images should contain, and that the terms may even be the same from one thesaurus to the next. In this paper, we describe the methodology adopted for studying this question, and report preliminary results

0.0069279084 = product of:
  0.020783724 = sum of:
    0.020783724 = product of:
      0.04156745 = sum of:
        0.04156745 = weight(_text_:22 in 1468) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04156745 = score(doc=1468,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17906146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1468, 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=1468)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.0064184438 = product of:
  0.01925533 = sum of:
    0.01925533 = product of:
      0.03851066 = sum of:
        0.03851066 = weight(_text_:management in 475) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03851066 = score(doc=475,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 475, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=475)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

General linguistic and specific semantic problems arising in multilingual thesaurus construction are well defined in the various textbooks and in the guidelines covering this area. Many details are provided on the 'conceptual equivalence' issue, and various ways of dealing with conceptual divergence are described. But when discussing semantic solutions, display options, management issues, or use of technology, specialists and guidelines seldom, if ever, go as far as commenting on whether or not a particular option is truly respectful of a language and its speakers. This paper, based on the premise that in a multilingual thesaurus all languages are equal, reviews the options and solutions offered by the guidelines to the developer of specialized thesauri. It also introduces other problems of a sociocultural, and even of a truly political nature, a prominent feature in the daily life of the thesaurus designer with which the theory and the guidelines do not deal very well

0.0064184438 = product of:
  0.01925533 = sum of:
    0.01925533 = product of:
      0.03851066 = sum of:
        0.03851066 = weight(_text_:management in 1147) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03851066 = score(doc=1147,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17235184 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051133685 = queryNorm
            0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 1147, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1147)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Series

Information science and knowledge management; vol.2