Search (3 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  • × author_ss:"Rafferty, P."
  1. Hidderley, R.; Rafferty, P.: Flickr and democratic indexing : disciplining desire lines (2006) 0.01
    0.009529176 = product of:
      0.019058352 = sum of:
        0.019058352 = product of:
          0.038116705 = sum of:
            0.038116705 = weight(_text_:systems in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.038116705 = score(doc=119,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 119, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=119)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    In this paper, we consider three models of subject indexing, and compare and contrast two indexing approaches, the theoretically based democratic indexing project, and Flickr, a working system for describing photographs. We argue that, despite Shirky's (2005) claim of philosophical paradigm shifting for social tagging, there is a residing doubt amongst information professionals that self-organising systems can work without there being some element of control and some form of 'representative authority'.
  2. Rafferty, P.: ¬The representation of knowledge in library classification schemes (2001) 0.01
    0.008167865 = product of:
      0.01633573 = sum of:
        0.01633573 = product of:
          0.03267146 = sum of:
            0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03267146 = score(doc=640,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 640, 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=640)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This article explores the representation of knowledge through the discursive practice of 'general' or 'universal' classification schemes. These classification schemes were constructed within a philosophical framework which viewed `man' as the central focus in the universe, which believed in progress through science and research, and which privileged written documentation over other forms. All major classification schemes are built on clearly identifiable systems of knowledge, and all classification schemes, as discursive formations, regulate the ways in which knowledge is made accessible. Of particular interest in determining how knowledge is represented in classification schemes are the following: - Main classes: classification theorists have attempted to 'discipline epistemology' in the sense of imposing main class structures with the view to simplifying access to knowledge in documents for library users. - Notational language: a number of classification theorists were particularly interested in the establishment of symbolic languages through notation. The article considers these aspects of classification theory in relation to: the Dewey Decimal Classification scheme; Otlet and La Fontaine's Universal Bibliographic Classification and the International Institute of Bibliography; Henry Evelyn Bliss's Bibliographic Classification; and S.R. Ranganathan's Colon Classification.
  3. Rafferty, P.; Hidderley, R.: Flickr and democratic Indexing : dialogic approaches to indexing (2007) 0.01
    0.008167865 = product of:
      0.01633573 = sum of:
        0.01633573 = product of:
          0.03267146 = sum of:
            0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03267146 = score(doc=752,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.052184064 = queryNorm
                0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 752, 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=752)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is two-fold: to examine three models of subject indexing (i.e. expert-led indexing, author-generated indexing, and user-orientated indexing); and to compare and contrast two user-orientated indexing approaches (i.e. the theoretically-based Democratic Indexing project, and Flickr, a working system for describing photographs). Design/methodology/approach - The approach to examining Flickr and Democratic Indexing is evaluative. The limitations of Flickr are described and examples are provided. The Democratic Indexing approach, which the authors believe offers a method of marshalling a "free" user-indexed archive to provide useful retrieval functions, is described. Findings - The examination of both Flickr and the Democratic Indexing approach suggests that, despite Shirky's claim of philosophical paradigm shifting for social tagging, there is a residing doubt amongst information professionals that self-organising systems can work without there being some element of control and some form of "representative authority". Originality/value - This paper contributes to the literature of user-based indexing and social tagging.