Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

0.011789299 = product of:
  0.023578597 = sum of:
    0.023578597 = product of:
      0.047157194 = sum of:
        0.047157194 = weight(_text_:systems in 4142) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047157194 = score(doc=4142,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.29405114 = fieldWeight in 4142, 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=4142)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Literature on the systematifier is remarkably limited in knowledge organization. Dahlberg created the procedure in the seventies as a guide for the construction of classification systems and showed its applicability in systems she developed. According to her initial conception, all disciplines should be structured in the following sequence: Foundations and theories-Subjects of study-Methods-Influences-Applications-Environment. The nature of the procedure is determined in this study and the concept is situated in relation with the domain analysis methodologies. As a tool for the organization of the map of a certain domain, it is associated with a rationalist perspective and the top-down design of systems construction. It would require a reassessment of its scope in order to ensure its applicability to multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary domains. Among other conclusions, it is highlighted that the greatest potential of the systematifier is given by the fact that-as a methodological device-it can act as: i)an analyzer of a subject area; ii)an organizer of its main terms; and, iii)an identifier of links, bridges and intersection points with other knowledge areas.

0.009625921 = product of:
  0.019251842 = sum of:
    0.019251842 = product of:
      0.038503684 = sum of:
        0.038503684 = weight(_text_:systems in 5646) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038503684 = score(doc=5646,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 5646, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5646)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The areas of knowledge are organized around the identification of their terms of reference and the relationships established between them. This is the rational basis of -among others- the methodology for the development of knowledge organization systems. The authority from which to select, evaluate or revise the terminology of these systems is established in relation to any of the twenty-one warrants (literary, cultural, etc.) that have been proposed and studied unequally and autonomously in the literature of the area. This paper intends to introduce initial notes and comments to advance towards an overall conception of the warrant notion. For this purpose, the expression "warrant" is studied as a word of the general language as well as a term of specialized languages. Then, the scope of application of the warrants is established. Next, each warrant is placed in one of the approaches proposed by Hjørland to categorize theories and methods (empiricism, rationalism, historicism and pragmatism). From the above, some lines of research problems are identified. A typological table that includes data on all the warrants established until now is proposed, and the first conclusions are drawn.

0.008167865 = product of:
  0.01633573 = sum of:
    0.01633573 = product of:
      0.03267146 = sum of:
        0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 4533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03267146 = score(doc=4533,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 4533, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4533)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper reviews the coining and evolution process of the literary warrant concept from its introduction by Hulme in 1911 until today, its use, applications and adjustment to a digital information environment. Different theoretical and methodological perspectives of literary warrant found in the literature of library and information science are reported and discussed. The usage by three significant knowledge organization systems are studied. The relationships and points of discussion with the general notion of warrant and with derived warrants (user, cultural, academic and organizational warrant) are established. Among other conclusions, it is set that over a century after its first enunciation it is possible to predict that the principle will be increasingly used in digital environments and other information contexts, even outside the library and information science field, with similar objectives and intentions. Its scope of application increases insofar as it can support the development of new concept structures such as taxonomies, ontologies or concepts and topic maps and it can warrant the terms to be included in specialized dictionaries or glossaries.