Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.058595307 = product of:
  0.117190614 = sum of:
    0.06355893 = weight(_text_:storage in 566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06355893 = score(doc=566,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1866346 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.34055278 = fieldWeight in 566, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=566)
    0.019588182 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019588182 = score(doc=566,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10360982 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.18905719 = fieldWeight in 566, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=566)
    0.024762118 = weight(_text_:systems in 566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024762118 = score(doc=566,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10526281 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.2352409 = fieldWeight in 566, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=566)
    0.009281386 = product of:
      0.018562771 = sum of:
        0.018562771 = weight(_text_:22 in 566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018562771 = score(doc=566,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.119945176 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.034252144 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 566, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=566)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(4/8)

Abstract

Knowledge Architectures reviews traditional approaches to managing information and explains why they need to adapt to support 21st-century information management and discovery. Exploring the rapidly changing environment in which information is being managed and accessed, the book considers how to use knowledge architectures, the basic structures and designs that underlie all of the parts of an effective information system, to best advantage. Drawing on 40 years of work with a variety of organizations, Bedford explains that failure to understand the structure behind any given system can be the difference between an effective solution and a significant and costly failure. Demonstrating that the information user environment has shifted significantly in the past 20 years, the book explains that end users now expect designs and behaviors that are much closer to the way they think, work, and act. Acknowledging how important it is that those responsible for developing an information or knowledge management system understand knowledge structures, the book goes beyond a traditional library science perspective and uses case studies to help translate the abstract and theoretical to the practical and concrete. Explaining the structures in a simple and intuitive way and providing examples that clearly illustrate the challenges faced by a range of different organizations, Knowledge Architectures is essential reading for those studying and working in library and information science, data science, systems development, database design, and search system architecture and engineering.

Content

Section 1 Context and purpose of knowledge architecture -- 1 Making the case for knowledge architecture -- 2 The landscape of knowledge assets -- 3 Knowledge architecture and design -- 4 Knowledge architecture reference model -- 5 Knowledge architecture segments -- Section 2 Designing for availability -- 6 Knowledge object modeling -- 7 Knowledge structures for encoding, formatting, and packaging -- 8 Functional architecture for identification and distinction -- 9 Functional architectures for knowledge asset disposition and destruction -- 10 Functional architecture designs for knowledge preservation and conservation -- Section 3 Designing for accessibility -- 11 Functional architectures for knowledge seeking and discovery -- 12 Functional architecture for knowledge search -- 13 Functional architecture for knowledge categorization -- 14 Functional architectures for indexing and keywording -- 15 Functional architecture for knowledge semantics -- 16 Functional architecture for knowledge abstraction and surrogation -- Section 4 Functional architectures to support knowledge consumption -- 17 Functional architecture for knowledge augmentation, derivation, and synthesis -- 18 Functional architecture to manage risk and harm -- 19 Functional architectures for knowledge authentication and provenance -- 20 Functional architectures for securing knowledge assets -- 21 Functional architectures for authorization and asset management -- Section 5 Pulling it all together - the big picture knowledge architecture -- 22 Functional architecture for knowledge metadata and metainformation -- 23 The whole knowledge architecture - pulling it all together

LCSH

Information storage and retrieval systems / Management

Subject

Information storage and retrieval systems / Management

0.045769572 = product of:
  0.12205219 = sum of:
    0.07784348 = weight(_text_:storage in 1105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07784348 = score(doc=1105,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1866346 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.4170903 = fieldWeight in 1105, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1105)
    0.023990527 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023990527 = score(doc=1105,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10360982 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.23154683 = fieldWeight in 1105, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1105)
    0.020218184 = weight(_text_:systems in 1105) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020218184 = score(doc=1105,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10526281 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.19207339 = fieldWeight in 1105, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1105)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to delineate the process of evolution of know­ledge organization systems (KOSs) through identification of principles of unity such as internal and external unity in organizing the structure of KOSs to achieve content storage and retrieval purposes and to explain a novel method used in ranking of KOSs by proposing the principle of rank unity. Different types of KOSs which are addressed in this article include dictionaries, Roget's thesaurus, thesauri, micro, macro, and meta-thesaurus, ontologies, and lower, middle, and upper-level ontologies. This article relied on dialectic models to clarify the ideas in Kant's know­ledge theory. This is done by identifying logical relationships between categories (i.e., Thesis, antithesis, and synthesis) in the creation of data, information, and know­ledge in the human mind. The Analysis has adapted a historical methodology, more specifically a documentary method, as its reasoning process to propose a conceptual model for ranking KOSs. The study endeavors to explain the main elements of data, information, and know­ledge along with engineering mechanisms such as data, information, and know­ledge engineering in developing the structure of KOSs and also aims to clarify their influence on content storage and retrieval performance. KOSs have followed related principles of order to achieve an internal order, which could be examined by analyzing the principle of internal unity in know­ledge organizations. The principle of external unity leads us to the necessity of compatibility and interoperability between different types of KOSs to achieve semantic harmonization in increasing the performance of content storage and retrieval. Upon introduction of the principle of rank unity, a ranking method of KOSs utilizing cognition states as criteria could be considered to determine the position of each know­ledge organization with respect to others. The related criteria of the principle of rank unity- cognition states- are derived from Immanuel Kant's epistemology. The research results showed that KOSs, while having defined positions in cognition states, specific principles of order, related operational mechanisms, and related principles of unity in achieving their specific purposes, have benefited from the developmental experiences of previous KOSs, and further, their developmental processes owe to the experiences and methods of their previous generations.

0.03916688 = product of:
  0.10444501 = sum of:
    0.05617869 = weight(_text_:storage in 592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05617869 = score(doc=592,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1866346 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.30100897 = fieldWeight in 592, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=592)
    0.01731367 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01731367 = score(doc=592,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10360982 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 592, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=592)
    0.03095265 = weight(_text_:systems in 592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03095265 = score(doc=592,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10526281 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.29405114 = fieldWeight in 592, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=592)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to identify the most important factors and features in the evolution of thesauri and ontologies through a dialectic model. This model relies on a dialectic process or idea which could be discovered via a dialectic method. This method has focused on identifying the logical relationship between a beginning proposition, or an idea called a thesis, a negation of that idea called the antithesis, and the result of the conflict between the two ideas, called a synthesis. During the creation of knowl­edge organization systems (KOSs), the identification of logical relations between different ideas has been made possible through the consideration and use of the most influential methods and tools such as dictionaries, Roget's Thesaurus, thesaurus, micro-, macro- and metathesauri, ontology, lower, middle and upper level ontologies. The analysis process has adapted a historical methodology, more specifically a dialectic method and documentary method as the reasoning process. This supports our arguments and synthesizes a method for the analysis of research results. Confirmed by the research results, the principle of unity has shown to be the most important factor in the development and evolution of the structure of knowl­edge organization systems and their types. There are various types of unity when considering the analysis of logical relations. These include the principle of unity of alphabetical order, unity of science, semantic unity, structural unity and conceptual unity. The results have clearly demonstrated a movement from plurality to unity in the assembling of the complex structure of knowl­edge organization systems to increase information and knowl­edge storage and retrieval performance.

0.03916688 = product of:
  0.10444501 = sum of:
    0.05617869 = weight(_text_:storage in 593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05617869 = score(doc=593,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1866346 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.30100897 = fieldWeight in 593, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=593)
    0.01731367 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01731367 = score(doc=593,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10360982 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 593, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=593)
    0.03095265 = weight(_text_:systems in 593) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03095265 = score(doc=593,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.10526281 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.29405114 = fieldWeight in 593, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=593)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to identify the most important factors and features in the evolution of thesauri and ontologies through a dialectic model. This model relies on a dialectic process or idea which could be discovered via a dialectic method. This method has focused on identifying the logical relationship between a beginning proposition, or an idea called a thesis, a negation of that idea called the antithesis, and the result of the conflict between the two ideas, called a synthesis. During the creation of knowl­edge organization systems (KOSs), the identification of logical relations between different ideas has been made possible through the consideration and use of the most influential methods and tools such as dictionaries, Roget's Thesaurus, thesaurus, micro-, macro- and metathesauri, ontology, lower, middle and upper level ontologies. The analysis process has adapted a historical methodology, more specifically a dialectic method and documentary method as the reasoning process. This supports our arguments and synthesizes a method for the analysis of research results. Confirmed by the research results, the principle of unity has shown to be the most important factor in the development and evolution of the structure of knowl­edge organization systems and their types. There are various types of unity when considering the analysis of logical relations. These include the principle of unity of alphabetical order, unity of science, semantic unity, structural unity and conceptual unity. The results have clearly demonstrated a movement from plurality to unity in the assembling of the complex structure of knowl­edge organization systems to increase information and knowl­edge storage and retrieval performance.

0.01837309 = product of:
  0.07349236 = sum of:
    0.05617869 = weight(_text_:storage in 949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05617869 = score(doc=949,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1866346 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.30100897 = fieldWeight in 949, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.4488444 = idf(docFreq=516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=949)
    0.01731367 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 949) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01731367 = score(doc=949,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10360982 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.034252144 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 949, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=949)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Purpose This paper analyses the research in Library and Information Science (LIS) and reports on (1) the status of LIS research in 2015 and (2) on the evolution of LIS research longitudinally from 1965 to 2015. Design/methodology/approach The study employs a quantitative intellectual content analysis of articles published in 30+ scholarly LIS journals, following the design by Tuomaala et al. (2014). In the content analysis, we classify articles along eight dimensions covering topical content and methodology. Findings The topical findings indicate that the earlier strong LIS emphasis on L&I services has declined notably, while scientific and professional communication has become the most popular topic. Information storage and retrieval has given up its earlier strong position towards the end of the years analyzed. Individuals are increasingly the units of observation. End-user's and developer's viewpoints have strengthened at the cost of intermediaries' viewpoint. LIS research is methodologically increasingly scattered since survey, scientometric methods, experiment, case studies and qualitative studies have all gained in popularity. Consequently, LIS may have become more versatile in the analysis of its research objects during the years analyzed. Originality/value Among quantitative intellectual content analyses of LIS research, the study is unique in its scope: length of analysis period (50 years), width (8 dimensions covering topical content and methodology) and depth (the annual batch of 30+ scholarly journals).