Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.029295318 = product of:
  0.058590636 = sum of:
    0.04603782 = weight(_text_:social in 1424) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04603782 = score(doc=1424,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.24922368 = fieldWeight in 1424, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1424)
    0.012552816 = product of:
      0.025105633 = sum of:
        0.025105633 = weight(_text_:22 in 1424) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025105633 = score(doc=1424,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 1424, 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=1424)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

Abstract

Some scholars argue that certain classificatory structures possess inherent social-semantic values and that the desirability (or lack thereof) of these values should form a basis for evaluating the classificatory goodness of such structures. Others hold that it is possible to distinguish between the structural properties of a given classificatory structure and the semantic content (and values) of the classification in which it is used, and that the classificatory goodness of a given structural form is best evaluated by its capacity to support effectively the organization of re-sources in a given context. This paper illustrates the second, "functionalist" position by means of a historical case study examining the contrasting evaluations of a single structural form - namely, the flat (a)hierarchical structure known as constitutive classification - by two early pioneers of knowledge organization, Julius Otto Kaiser and James Duff Brown. Both men knew of the use of constitutive classification for the organization of documents and were aware of its affordances, yet formed highly different opinions of it: Kaiser, a special librarian who sought to classify documents by documentary form in business offices and business libraries, endorsed it, whil Brown, a public librarian concerned with subject-based classification of books, rejected it. In both cases, it was the functional capacity (or lack thereof) of constitutive classification to enable an adequate classification of documents with respect to a given semantic content and in a certain context that determined the evaluation of its structural form. This example suggests that structural form is analytically separable from semantic context and social context and that it is its functional alignment with the latter, rather than any supposedly inherent socio-semantic values, that has, in the past, served as a norm for evaluating the goodness of classificatory structures.

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

0.020915726 = product of:
  0.083662905 = sum of:
    0.083662905 = sum of:
      0.052280862 = weight(_text_:aspects in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.052280862 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046325076 = queryNorm
          0.2496898 = fieldWeight in 1418, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1418)
      0.031382043 = weight(_text_:22 in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031382043 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046325076 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1418, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1418)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Categories, or concepts of high generality representing the most basic kinds of entities in the world, have long been understood to be a fundamental element in the construction of knowledge organization systems (KOSs), particularly faceted ones. Commentators on facet analysis have tended to foreground the role of categories in the structuring of controlled vocabularies and the construction of compound index terms, and the implications of this for subject representation and information retrieval. Less attention has been paid to the variety of ways in which categories can shape the overall architectonic framework of a KOS. This case study explores the range of functions that categories took in structuring various aspects of an early analytico-synthetic KOS, Julius Otto Kaiser's method of Systematic Indexing (SI). Within SI, categories not only functioned as mechanisms to partition an index vocabulary into smaller groupings of terms and as elements in the construction of compound index terms but also served as means of defining the units of indexing, or index items, incorporated into an index; determining the organization of card index files and the articulation of the guide card system serving as a navigational aids thereto; and setting structural constraints to the establishment of cross-references between terms. In all these ways, Kaiser's system of categories contributed to the general systematicity of SI.

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

0.01220762 = product of:
  0.04883048 = sum of:
    0.04883048 = weight(_text_:social in 3357) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04883048 = score(doc=3357,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.26434162 = fieldWeight in 3357, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3357)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Pragmatism is a metatheoretical perspective within knowledge organization (KO) that derives from an American philosophical tradition active since the late 19th century. Its core feature is commitment to the evaluation of the adequacy of concepts and beliefs through the empirical test of practice: this entails epistemological antifoundationalism, fallibilism, contingency, social embeddedness, and pluralism. This article reviews three variants of Pragmatism that have been historically influential in philosophy-Charles Sanders Pierce's scientifically oriented pragmaticism, William James's subjectivist practicalism, and John Dewey's socially oriented instrumentalism-and indicates points of contact between them and KO theories propounded by Henry E. Bliss, Jesse H. Shera, and Birger Hjørland, respectively. KO applications of classical Pragmatism have tended to converge toward a socially pluralist model characteristic of Dewey. Recently, Richard Rorty's post-modern brand of Neopragmatism has found adherents within KO: whether it provides a more advantageous metatheoretical framework than classical Pragmatism remains to be seen.

0.005228086 = product of:
  0.020912344 = sum of:
    0.020912344 = product of:
      0.041824687 = sum of:
        0.041824687 = weight(_text_:aspects in 3859) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041824687 = score(doc=3859,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.19975184 = fieldWeight in 3859, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3859)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Modelling bibliographical entities is a prominent activity within knowledge organization today. Current models of bibliographic entities, such as Functional Requirements for Bibliographical Records (FRBR) and the Bibliographic Framework (BIBFRAME), take inspiration from data - modelling methods developed by computer scientists from the mid - 1970s on. Thus, it would seem that the modelling of bibliographic entities is an activity of very recent vintage. However, it is possible to find examples of bibliographical models from earlier periods of knowledge organization. The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to one such model, outlined by the early 20th - century British classification theorist E. Wyndham Hulme in his essay on "Principles of Book Classification" (1911 - 1912). There, Hulme set forth a classification of various attributes by which books can conceivably be classified. These he first divided into accidental and inseparable attributes. Accidental attributes were subdivided into edition - level and copy - level attributes and inseparable attitudes, into physical and non - physical attributes. Comparison of Hulme's classification of attributes with those of FRBR and BIBFRAME 2.0 reveals that the different classes of attributes in Hulme's classification correspond to groups of attributes associated with different bibliographical entities in those models. These later models assume the existence of different bibliographic entities in an abstraction hierarchy among which attributes are distributed, whereas Hulme posited only a single entity - the book - , whose various aspects he clustered into different classes of attributes. Thus, Hulme's model offers an interesting alternative to current assumptions about how to conceptualize the relationship between attributes and entities in the bibliographical universe.

0.005228086 = product of:
  0.020912344 = sum of:
    0.020912344 = product of:
      0.041824687 = sum of:
        0.041824687 = weight(_text_:aspects in 4141) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041824687 = score(doc=4141,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.19975184 = fieldWeight in 4141, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4141)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Modelling bibliographical entities is a prominent activity within knowledge organization today. Current models of bibliographic entities, such as Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) and the Bibliographic Framework (BIBFRAME), take inspiration from data-modelling methods developed by computer scientists from the mid-1970s on. Thus, it would seem that the modelling of bibliographic entities is an activity of very recent vintage. However, it is possible to find examples of bibliographical models from earlier periods of knowledge organization. The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to one such model, outlined by the early twentiethcentury British classification theorist E. Wyndham Hulme in his essay on "Principles of Book Classification" (1911-1912). There, Hulme set forth a classification of various attributes by which books can be classified. These he first divided into "accidental" and "inseparable" attributes. Accidental attributes were subdivided into edition-level and copy-level attributes and inseparable attitudes, into "physical" and "non-physical" attributes. Comparison of Hulme's classification of attributes with those of FRBR and BIBFRAME 2.0 reveals that the different classes of attributes in Hulme's classification correspond to groups of attributes associated with different bibliographical entities in those models. These later models assume the existence of different bibliographic entities in an abstract hierarchy among which attributes are distributed, whereas Hulme posited only a single entity-the book-whose various aspects he clustered into different classes of attributes. Thus, Hulme's model offers an interesting alternative to current assumptions about how to conceptualize the relationship between attributes and entities in the bibliographical universe.

0.0039227554 = product of:
  0.015691021 = sum of:
    0.015691021 = product of:
      0.031382043 = sum of:
        0.031382043 = weight(_text_:22 in 3509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031382043 = score(doc=3509,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3509, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3509)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Pages

S.15-22

0.0039227554 = product of:
  0.015691021 = sum of:
    0.015691021 = product of:
      0.031382043 = sum of:
        0.031382043 = weight(_text_:22 in 1417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031382043 = score(doc=1417,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16222252 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1417, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1417)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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