Search (21 results, page 1 of 2)

0.048059914 = product of:
  0.09611983 = sum of:
    0.09611983 = sum of:
      0.04654012 = weight(_text_:research in 3363) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04654012 = score(doc=3363,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.31204507 = fieldWeight in 3363, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3363)
      0.04957971 = weight(_text_:22 in 3363) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.04957971 = score(doc=3363,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05227703 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3363, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3363)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This study analyzes Spanish research on Knowledge Organization from 2002 to 2010. The first stage involved extraction of records from national and international databases that were interrogated. After getting the pertinent records, they we re normalized and processed according to the usual bibliometric procedure. The results point to a mature specialty follow ing the path of the past decade. There is a remarkable increase of male vs. female authors per publication, although the gender gap is not big. It is also evident that ther e is a remarkable internationalization in publication and that the content map of the specialty is more varied than in the previous decade.

Date

22. 2.2013 12:10:07

0.027676595 = product of:
  0.05535319 = sum of:
    0.05535319 = product of:
      0.16605957 = sum of:
        0.16605957 = weight(_text_:3a in 7394) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.16605957 = score(doc=7394,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.44320524 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.3746787 = fieldWeight in 7394, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=7394)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Ergebnis einer Umfrage aus dem Frühjahr 1993. A. Wissenschaftliche Bibliotheken: Versandt wurde der Fragebogen an die Mitglieder der Sektion IV des DBV. Fragen: (1a) Um welchen Bestand handelt es sich, der sachlich erschlossen wird? (1b) Wie groß ist dieser Bestand? (1c) Wird dieser Bestand vollständig oder nur in Auswahl (einzelne Fächer, Lehrbücher, Dissertationen o.ä.) sachlich erschlossen? (1d) Seit wann bestehen die jetzigen Sachkataloge? (2) Auf welche Art wird der Bestand zur Zeit sachlich erschlossen? (3a) Welche Klassifikation wird angewendet? (3b) Gibt es alphabetisches SyK-Register bzw. einen Zugriff auf die Klassenbeschreibungen? (3c) Gibt es ergänzende Schlüssel für die Aspekte Ort, Zeit, Form? (4) Falls Sie einen SWK führen (a) nach welchem Regelwerk? (b) Gibt es ein genormtes Vokabular oder einen Thesaurus (ggf. nur für bestimmte Fächer)? (5) In welcher Form existieren die Sachkataloge? (6) Ist die Bibliothek an einer kooperativen Sacherschließung, z.B. in einem Verbund beteiligt? [Nein: 79%] (7) Nutzen Sie Fremdleistungen bei der Sacherschließung? [Ja: 46%] (8) Welche sachlichen Suchmöglichkeiten gibt es für Benutzer? (9) Sind zukünftige Veränderungen bei der Sacherschließung geplant? [Ja: 73%]. - B. Öffentliche Bibliotheken: Die Umfrage richtete sich an alle ÖBs der Sektionen I, II und III des DBV. Fragen: (1) Welche Sachkataloge führen Sie? (2) Welche Klassifikationen (Systematiken) liegen dem SyK zugrunde? [ASB: 242; KAB: 333; SfB: 4 (???); SSD: 11; Berliner: 18] (3) Führen Sie ein eigenes Schlagwort-Register zum SyK bzw. zur Klassifikation (Systematik)? (4) Führen Sie den SWK nach ...? [RSWK: 132 (= ca. 60%) anderen Regeln: 93] (5) Seit wann bestehen die jetzigen Sachkataloge? (6) In welcher Form existiern die Sachkataloge? (7) In welchem Umfang wird der Bestand erschlossen? (8) Welche Signaturen verwenden Sie? (9) Ist die Bibliothek an einer kooperativen Sacherschließung, z.B. einem Verbund, beteiligt? [Nein: 96%] (10) Nutzen Sie Fremdleistungen bei der Sacherschließung? [Ja: 70%] (11) Woher beziehen Sie diese Fremdleistungen? (12) Verfügen Sie über ein Online-Katalogsystem mit OPAC? [Ja: 78; Nein: 614] (13) Sind zukünftig Veränderungen bei der Sacherschließung geplant? [Nein: 458; Ja: 237]; RESÜMEE für ÖB: "(i) Einführung von EDV-Katalogen bleibt auch in den 90er Jahren ein Thema, (ii) Der Aufbau von SWK wird in vielen Bibliotheken in Angriff genommen, dabei spielt die Fremddatenübernahme eine entscheidende Rolle, (iii) RSWK werden zunehmend angewandt, Nutzung der SWD auch für andere Regeln wirkt normierend, (iv) Große Bewegung auf dem 'Systematik-Markt' ist in absehbarer Zeit nicht zu erwarten, (v) Für kleinere Bibliotheken wird der Zettelkatalog auf absehbare Zeit noch die herrschende Katalogform sein, (vi) Der erhebliche Nachholbedarf in den neuen Bundesländern wird nur in einem größeren Zeitraum zu leisten sein. ??? SPEZIALBIBIOTHEKEN ???

0.021248447 = product of:
  0.042496894 = sum of:
    0.042496894 = product of:
      0.08499379 = sum of:
        0.08499379 = weight(_text_:22 in 6041) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08499379 = score(doc=6041,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 6041, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=6041)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Series

Kölner Arbeiten zum Bibliotheks- und Dokumentationswesen; H.22

0.018805047 = product of:
  0.037610095 = sum of:
    0.037610095 = product of:
      0.07522019 = sum of:
        0.07522019 = weight(_text_:research in 1855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07522019 = score(doc=1855,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.504341 = fieldWeight in 1855, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=1855)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

College and research libraries. 11(1950) no.3, S.197-206

0.018805047 = product of:
  0.037610095 = sum of:
    0.037610095 = product of:
      0.07522019 = sum of:
        0.07522019 = weight(_text_:research in 3926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07522019 = score(doc=3926,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.504341 = fieldWeight in 3926, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3926)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

College and research libraries. 17(1956) no.3, S.213-215

0.0141656315 = product of:
  0.028331263 = sum of:
    0.028331263 = product of:
      0.056662526 = sum of:
        0.056662526 = weight(_text_:22 in 6607) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056662526 = score(doc=6607,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 6607, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6607)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Probleme des Wiederaufbaus im wissenschaftlichen Bibliothekswesen: aus d. Verhandlungen des 1. Bibliothekartagung der britischen Zone in Hamburg vom 22.-24.10.1946

0.0141656315 = product of:
  0.028331263 = sum of:
    0.028331263 = product of:
      0.056662526 = sum of:
        0.056662526 = weight(_text_:22 in 2521) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056662526 = score(doc=2521,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 2521, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=2521)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 3.2008 13:33:51

0.0141656315 = product of:
  0.028331263 = sum of:
    0.028331263 = product of:
      0.056662526 = sum of:
        0.056662526 = weight(_text_:22 in 1432) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.056662526 = score(doc=1432,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 1432, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1432)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 8.2016 15:58:46

0.013297176 = product of:
  0.026594352 = sum of:
    0.026594352 = product of:
      0.053188704 = sum of:
        0.053188704 = weight(_text_:research in 7725) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053188704 = score(doc=7725,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.35662293 = fieldWeight in 7725, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7725)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The 2nd Int. Study Conf. on Classification Research was held in Elsinore, Denmark on 14-18.9.1964. That conference is revisited and compared with the present ISKO '94 conference on Knowledge Organization and Quality Management to show how much progress has been made, how many old problems still await solutions, and why the fields of work called Classification Research and Knowledge Management have much in common

0.013297176 = product of:
  0.026594352 = sum of:
    0.026594352 = product of:
      0.053188704 = sum of:
        0.053188704 = weight(_text_:research in 4781) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053188704 = score(doc=4781,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.35662293 = fieldWeight in 4781, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4781)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Challenges and opportunities for knowledge organization in the digital age: proceedings of the Fifteenth International ISKO Conference, 9-11 July 2018, Porto, Portugal / organized by: International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO Spain and Portugal Chapter, University of Porto - Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Research Centre in Communication, Information and Digital Culture (CIC.digital) - Porto. Eds.: F. Ribeiro u. M.E. Cerveira

0.013140426 = product of:
  0.026280852 = sum of:
    0.026280852 = product of:
      0.052561704 = sum of:
        0.052561704 = weight(_text_:research in 561) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052561704 = score(doc=561,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.352419 = fieldWeight in 561, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=561)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Enthält u.a. den Wiederabdruck der folgenden Beiträge: The need for a faceted classification as the basis of all methods of information retrieval (Memorandum of the Classification Research Group, 1955); COATES, E.J.: Classification in information retrieval: the twenty years following Dorking (1978); VICKERY, B.C.: Structure and function in retrieval languages (1971); VICKERY, B.C.: Knowledge representation: a brief review (1986); LEWSI, D.D. u. K. SPARCK JONES: Natural language processing for information retrieval (1996); CLEVERDON, C.W. u. J. MILLS: The testing of indexing language devices (1963); SOERGEL, D.: Indexing and retrieval performance: the logical evidence (1994); SPARCK JONES, K.: Reflections on TREC (1995); KEREN, C.: On information science (1984); SALTON, G.: A note about information science research (1985); SVENONIUS, E.: Unanswered questions in the design of controlled vocabularies (1986); MILSTEAD, J.L.: Needs for research in indexing (1994); WEINER, M.L. u. E.D. LIDDY: Intelligent text processing, and intelligence tradecraft (1995); ZORN, P. et al.: Advanced searching: tricks of the trade (1996); CROFT, W.B.: What do people want from information retrieval? (1995)

0.012214238 = product of:
  0.024428476 = sum of:
    0.024428476 = product of:
      0.04885695 = sum of:
        0.04885695 = weight(_text_:research in 539) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04885695 = score(doc=539,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.3275791 = fieldWeight in 539, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=539)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper attempts to summarize the rich and interesting history of cataloging in Medieval monastic libraries, when the production of books was in its infancy. It discusses some of these early practices when books were few in number and very valuable to the community. In the beginning, catalogs were mostly inventory lists of treasures, not used for research direction. Only the librarian or armarius was consulted for research direction. Complicating these practices was the fact that several "books" were often bound together in the same binding which would have hindered subject cataoging. As books' value evolved toward their subject matter rather than their value as physical objects, and the catalog grew from an inventory list for the librarian toward a guide for patrons, and the rudimentary inventory practices grew toward the modern research direction-oriented cataloging methods, the medieval catalog approached the modern catalog in purpose and content.

0.009972882 = product of:
  0.019945765 = sum of:
    0.019945765 = product of:
      0.03989153 = sum of:
        0.03989153 = weight(_text_:research in 5553) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03989153 = score(doc=5553,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.2674672 = fieldWeight in 5553, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5553)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper suggests writing a companion work to the Bourne and Hahn book, History of Online Information Services, 1963-1976 (2003), which would feature milestone improvements in subject access mechanisms developed over time. To provide a background for such a work, a 1976 paper by Meincke and Atherton is revisited wherein the concept of Knowledge Space is defined as "online mechanisms used for handling a user's knowledge level while a search was being formulated and processed." Research that followed in the 1980s and 1990s is linked together for the first time. Seven projects are suggested for current researchers to undertake so they can assess the utility of earlier research ideas that did not get a proper chance for development. It is just possible that they may have value and be found useful in today's information environment.

0.009402524 = product of:
  0.018805047 = sum of:
    0.018805047 = product of:
      0.037610095 = sum of:
        0.037610095 = weight(_text_:research in 7128) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037610095 = score(doc=7128,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.2521705 = fieldWeight in 7128, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=7128)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This piece of research traces the evolution of guidelines and principles for the construction of information retrieval thesauri from 1959 to 1993. We conclude that the majority of the basic problems of thesaurus construction has already been identified and solved by 1967 and that Eugene Wall, more than any other individual, has profoundly influenced the entire development in this area

0.00885352 = product of:
  0.01770704 = sum of:
    0.01770704 = product of:
      0.03541408 = sum of:
        0.03541408 = weight(_text_:22 in 3074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03541408 = score(doc=3074,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3074, 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=3074)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 8.2016 16:06:54

0.008310735 = product of:
  0.01662147 = sum of:
    0.01662147 = product of:
      0.03324294 = sum of:
        0.03324294 = weight(_text_:research in 592) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03324294 = score(doc=592,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.22288933 = fieldWeight in 592, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=592)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to identify the most important factors and features in the evolution of thesauri and ontologies through a dialectic model. This model relies on a dialectic process or idea which could be discovered via a dialectic method. This method has focused on identifying the logical relationship between a beginning proposition, or an idea called a thesis, a negation of that idea called the antithesis, and the result of the conflict between the two ideas, called a synthesis. During the creation of knowl­edge organization systems (KOSs), the identification of logical relations between different ideas has been made possible through the consideration and use of the most influential methods and tools such as dictionaries, Roget's Thesaurus, thesaurus, micro-, macro- and metathesauri, ontology, lower, middle and upper level ontologies. The analysis process has adapted a historical methodology, more specifically a dialectic method and documentary method as the reasoning process. This supports our arguments and synthesizes a method for the analysis of research results. Confirmed by the research results, the principle of unity has shown to be the most important factor in the development and evolution of the structure of knowl­edge organization systems and their types. There are various types of unity when considering the analysis of logical relations. These include the principle of unity of alphabetical order, unity of science, semantic unity, structural unity and conceptual unity. The results have clearly demonstrated a movement from plurality to unity in the assembling of the complex structure of knowl­edge organization systems to increase information and knowl­edge storage and retrieval performance.

0.008142825 = product of:
  0.01628565 = sum of:
    0.01628565 = product of:
      0.0325713 = sum of:
        0.0325713 = weight(_text_:research in 6089) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0325713 = score(doc=6089,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.21838607 = fieldWeight in 6089, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6089)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The genesis of the Group: In 1948, as part of the post-war renewal of library services in the United Kingdom, the Royal Society organized a Conference on Scientific Information.' What, at the time, must have seemed a minute part of the grand plan, but was later to have a transforming effect on the theory of knowledge organization throughout the remainder of the century, was the setting up of a standing committee of a small group of specialists to investigate the organization and retrieval of scientific information. In 1950, the secretary of that committee, J.D. Bernal, suggested that it might be appropriate to ask a group of librarians to do a study of the problem. After a couple of years of informal discussion it was agreed, in February 1952, to form a Classification Research Group - the CRG as it has become known to subsequent generations. The Group published a brief corporate statement of its views in the Library Association Record in June 1953 and submitted a memorandum to the Library Association Research Committee in May 1955, entitled "The need for a faceted classification as the basis of all methods of information retrieval". This memorandum was published in the proceedings of what has become known as the "Dorking Conference" in 1957. Of the original fifteen members, four still belong to the Group, three of whom are in regular attendance: Eric Coates, Douglas Foskett and Jack Mills. Brian Vickery ceased attending regularly in the 1960s but has retained his interest in their doings: he was present at the 150th celebratory meeting in 1984 and played an active part in the "Dorking revisited" conference held in 1997. The stated aim of the Group was 'To review the basic principles of bibliographic classification, unhampered by allegiance to any particular published scheme' and it can truly be stated that the work of its members has had a fundamental influence on the teaching and practice of information retrieval. It is paradoxical that this collection of people has exerted such a strong theoretical sway because their aims were from the outset and remain essentially practical. This fact is sometimes overlooked in the literature on knowledge organization: there is a tendency to get carried away, and for researchers of today to concentrate so hard on what might be that they overlook what is needed, useful and practical - the entire objective of any retrieval system.

0.008142825 = product of:
  0.01628565 = sum of:
    0.01628565 = product of:
      0.0325713 = sum of:
        0.0325713 = weight(_text_:research in 3251) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0325713 = score(doc=3251,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.21838607 = fieldWeight in 3251, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3251)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Tim Berners-Lee described in Weaving the Web his future vision of the World Wide Web in two parts. In the first one, nowadays called Web 2.0, people collaborate and enrich data together in a shared information space. In the second part, exchanges extend to computers, resulting in a "Semantic Web" (Berners-Lee 2000a, 157). Most historical studies of World Wide Web begin with the American roots of the Internet in ARPANET or follow a historiographical line of post war information revolutionaries, from Vannevar Bush to Tim Berners-Lee. This paper follows an alternative line. At the end of the nineteenth and in the first decades of the twentieth century various European scholars, like Patrick Geddes, Paul Otlet, Otto Neurath, and Wilhelm Ostwald explored the organisation, enrichment and dissemination of knowledge on a global level to come to a peaceful, universal society. We focus on Paul Otlet (1868-1944) who developed a knowledge infrastructure to update information mechanically and manually in collaboratories of scholars. First the Understanding Infrastructure (2007) report, that Paul N. Edwards et al. wrote on behalf of NSF, will be used to position Otlet's knowledge organization in their sketched development from information systems to information internetworks or webs. Secondly, the relevance of Otlet's knowledge infrastructure will be assessed for Web 2.0 and Semantic Web applications for research. The hypothesis will be put forward that the instruments and protocols envisioned by Otlet to enhance collaborative knowledge production, can still be relevant for current conceptualizations of "scientific authority" in data sharing and annotation in Web 2.0 applications and the modeling of the Semantic Web.

0.0070828157 = product of:
  0.0141656315 = sum of:
    0.0141656315 = product of:
      0.028331263 = sum of:
        0.028331263 = weight(_text_:22 in 3624) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028331263 = score(doc=3624,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18306525 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3624, 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=3624)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Original in: Pettee, J.: The history and theory of the alphabetical subject approach to books. New York: Wilson 1946. S.22-25.

0.007051893 = product of:
  0.014103786 = sum of:
    0.014103786 = product of:
      0.028207572 = sum of:
        0.028207572 = weight(_text_:research in 3434) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028207572 = score(doc=3434,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1491455 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05227703 = queryNorm
            0.18912788 = fieldWeight in 3434, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.8529835 = idf(docFreq=6931, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3434)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This article explores how linguistics has influenced information retrieval (IR) and attempts to explain the impact of linguistics through an analysis of internal developments in information science generally, and IR in particular. It notes that information science/IR has been evolving from a case science into a fully fledged, "disciplined"/disciplinary science. The article establishes correspondences between linguistics and information science/IR using the three established IR paradigms-physical, cognitive, and computational-as a frame of reference. The current relationship between information science/IR and linguistics is elucidated through discussion of some recent information science publications dealing with linguistic topics and a novel technique, "keyword collocation analysis," is introduced. Insights from interdisciplinarity research and case theory are also discussed. It is demonstrated that the three stages of interdisciplinarity, namely multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity (in the narrow sense), and transdisciplinarity, can be linked to different phases of the information science/IR-linguistics relationship and connected to different ways of using linguistic theory in information science and IR.