Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

0.004069207 = product of:
  0.016276827 = sum of:
    0.016276827 = weight(_text_:social in 1804) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016276827 = score(doc=1804,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1847249 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046325076 = queryNorm
        0.088113874 = fieldWeight in 1804, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.9875789 = idf(docFreq=2228, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=1804)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

While each single paragraph of the book is packed with valuable advice and real-life experience, I consider the last chapter to be the most intriguing and ground-breaking one. It's only here that taxonomists meet folksonomists and ontologists in a fundamental attempt to write a new page on the relative position between old and emerging classification techniques. In a well-balanced and sober analysis that foregoes excessive enthusiasm in favor of more appropriate considerations about content scale, domain maturity, precision and cost, knowledge infrastructure tools are all arrayed from inexpensive and expressive folksonomies on one side, to the smart, formal, machine-readable but expensive world of ontologies on the other. In light of so many different tools, information infrastructure clearly appears more as a complex dynamic ecosystem than a static overly designed environment. Such a variety of tasks, perspectives, work activities and paradigms calls for a resilient, adaptive and flexible knowledge environment with a minimum of standardization and uniformity. The right mix of tools and approaches can only be determined case by case, by carefully considering the particular objectives and requirements of the organization while aiming to maximize its overall performance and effectiveness. Starting from the history of taxonomy-building and ending with the emerging trends in Web technologies, artificial intelligence and social computing, Organising Knowledge is thus both a guiding tool and inspirational reading, not only about taxonomies, but also about effectiveness, collaboration and finding middle ground: exactly the right principles to make your intranet, portal or document management tool a rich, evolving and long-lasting ecosystem."

0.0036968153 = product of:
  0.014787261 = sum of:
    0.014787261 = product of:
      0.029574523 = sum of:
        0.029574523 = weight(_text_:aspects in 440) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029574523 = score(doc=440,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20938325 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046325076 = queryNorm
            0.14124589 = fieldWeight in 440, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.5198684 = idf(docFreq=1308, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=440)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Footnote

Rez. in: JASIST 58(2007) no.4, S.607-608 (A.D. Petrou): "One small example of a tension in the book's chapters can be expressed as: What exactly falls under information management (IM) as a domain of study? Is it content and research about a traditional life cycle of information, or is it the latter and also any other important issue in information research, such as culture, virtual reality, and online behavior, and communities of practice? In chapter 13, T.D. Wilson states, "Information management is the management of the life cycle to the point of delivery to the information user" (p. 164), yet as he also recognizes, other aspects of information are now included as IM's study matter. On p. 163 of the same chapter, Wilson offers Figure 12.2, titled "The extended life cycle of information." The life cycle in this case includes the following information stages: acquisition, organization, storage, retrieval, access and lending, and dissemination. All of these six stages Wilson labels, inside the circle, as IM. The rest of the extended information life cycle is information use, which includes use, sharing, and application. Chapter 3's author, Gunilla Widen-Wulff, quoting Davenport (1994), states "effective IM is about helping people make effective use of the information, rather than the machines" (p. 31). Widen-Wulff, however, addresses IM from an information culture perspective. To review the book's critical content, IM definitions and research methodology and methods reported in chapters are critically summarized next. This will provide basic information for anyone interested in using the book as an information research reader.
Allen strikes a realistic note of the institutional importance of trust across teams of academics and administrators, and subsequently of the political behavior of academics and computer services administrators/ managers and the relation of the latter to information strategy formulation. Research was conducted at 12 university sites, information strategy process documents were analyzed, and 20 informants were interviewed at each site. The study's research focused on cross-case analysis (instead of an iterative approach to collection and analysis of data), research was longitudinal, and a grounded theory approach was employed. According to the author, findings confirm a similar position taken by Pettigrew (1977): "development of information strategy is the outcome of negotiated political relations" (p. 177). And for such negotiated political relations, the author concludes, trust is a necessary ingredient. It is important to reiterate that IM's scope requires a diversity of study methods and methodologies to address all issues involved. A multiplicity of information and IM definitions and the number of local and global issues that must be addressed, along with information's significance as resource and/or commodity in different types of organizations, necessitate diversity in information research. Each chapter has demonstrated a need to cover many aspects of IM and to ensure that there is as much clarity in that effort as possible, and yet differentiation of IM from other related fields such as KM clearly remains a top issue. As with any other effort to define a field's boundaries, the task at hand is not easy, but while definitions and boundaries are being worked out, there is always an opportunity to engage in fruitful discussions about scope and critical issues in information research."