Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

0.01564433 = product of:
  0.03128866 = sum of:
    0.03128866 = sum of:
      0.013613109 = weight(_text_:systems in 1919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.013613109 = score(doc=1919,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.08488525 = fieldWeight in 1919, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1919)
      0.01767555 = weight(_text_:22 in 1919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01767555 = score(doc=1919,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.1827397 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.052184064 = queryNorm
          0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 1919, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1919)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

2. Collocation versus disambiguation Of course, the practical reality is that systems must accommodate dual purposes when they declare entities to be the same or different. We wish at once to collocate or draw together everything that is alike, and at the same time to disambiguate the collocated set. So, the tension between the two purposes holds every system in balance. A set of collocated entities is thought to contain entities that are the same to some degree, but different enough to require an approach to sorting the elements of the set. It reminds me again of Wilson, who said of relevance that sometimes people just want something that serves as a means to some end. What does that suggest about sameness and difference? Perhaps that "more or less the same" or "a little bit different" reveals a sort of fuzzy-set, which opens the brackets around the set of equivalent entities that have been collocated. If so, then it means all the more that the differences, no matter how slight, need to be accounted for in the disambiguation. Of course there is quite a lot of overlap among domains, especially among closely related domains. We can see that in the articles in the present issue of this journal. We have papers that have come from at least three domains, and yet they all treat of knowledge and its conceptual ordering. Yet there is little conformity among the works cited by these four papers. What does that tell us? Perhaps that different domains are a little bit the same?

Date

12. 6.2008 20:18:22

0.008167865 = product of:
  0.01633573 = sum of:
    0.01633573 = product of:
      0.03267146 = sum of:
        0.03267146 = weight(_text_:systems in 1119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03267146 = score(doc=1119,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 1119, 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=1119)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Works are key entities in the universe of recorded knowledge. Works are those deliberate creations (known variously as opera, oeuvres, Werke, etc.) that constitute individual sets of created conceptions that stand as the formal records of knowledge. In the information retrieval domain, the work as opposed to the document, has only recently received focused attention. In this paper, the definition of the work as an entity for information retrieval is examined. A taxonomic definition (that is, a definition built around a taxonomy) is presented. An epistemological perspective aids in understanding the components of the taxonomic definition. Works, thus defined as entities for information retrieval, are seen to constitute sets of varying instantiations of abstract creations. These variant instantiations must be explicitly identified in future systems for documentary information retrieval. An expanded perception of works, such as that presented in this paper, helps us understand the variety of ways in which mechanisms for their control and retrieval might better be shaped in future.

0.0068065543 = product of:
  0.013613109 = sum of:
    0.013613109 = product of:
      0.027226217 = sum of:
        0.027226217 = weight(_text_:systems in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027226217 = score(doc=2509,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 2509, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2509)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Perception is a crucial element in the viability of any knowledge organization system because it acts as a filter that provides contextual information about phenomena, including potential categorical membership. Perception is moderated culturally, but "social" systems exercise little or no cultural conformity. "Every day classification" is rife throughout human experience; but classification arises as a system of formal constraints that embody cultural assumptions about the categories that are the products of human cognition. Noesis is a perceptual component of Husserl's phenomenological approach to human experience. How we perceive a thing is filtered by our experiential feelings about it. The purpose of this research is to increase understanding of the role of cognition in every day classification by developing a fuller profile of perception. Photographs of mailboxes (a mundane, every-day example) from different locales are compared to demonstrate the noetic process. Tag clouds are analyzed to demonstrate the kinds of perceptual differences that suggest different user perceptions among those contributing tags.

0.0054452433 = product of:
  0.010890487 = sum of:
    0.010890487 = product of:
      0.021780973 = sum of:
        0.021780973 = weight(_text_:systems in 6087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021780973 = score(doc=6087,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16037072 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052184064 = queryNorm
            0.1358164 = fieldWeight in 6087, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6087)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

What exactly is "knowledge organization?" It turns out there are many different definitions and not all scholars within the domain agree. The Consulting Editors of this journal have asked the ISKO Scientific Advisory Council to consider a concise definition of knowledge organization, and especially to consider its relationship with the more recently evolved term, "knowledge management," as well. The debate will likely be lengthy; I invite readers to watch these pages for developments as they become available. Of course, ISKO members have a common sensibility about the meaning of knowledge organization. Our Society's organizing charter says that "it is the aim of the Society to promote research, development and application of all methods for the organization of knowledge in general or of particular fields by integrating especially the conceptual approaches of classification research and artificial intelligence." The charter also specifies that "The Society stresses philosophicological, psychological and semantic approaches for a conceptual order of objects." Our journal's statement of scope and aims suggests we are interested in "questions of the adequate structuring and construction of ordering systems and on the problems of their use." Our aim as a journal is to provide "a forum for all those interested in the organization of knowledge on a universal or domain-specific scale, using concept-analytical or concept-synthetical approaches, as well as quantitative and qualitative methodologies." What we can gather from these statements is that the core of our domain is the ordering of what is known, that that ordering might be accomplished in various ways but that concepts are critical lynchpins, and that a wide variety of scientific approaches fall within our embrace. Still, as all scholars know, a definition of a tern may not include the term being defined; ergo, we cannot define knowledge organization as the organization of knowledge [!] - consequently we have charged ISKO to consider whether The Society can provide core definitions.