Search (7 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0040669674 = product of:
  0.012200902 = sum of:
    0.012200902 = product of:
      0.024401804 = sum of:
        0.024401804 = weight(_text_:of in 2347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024401804 = score(doc=2347,freq=34.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.35617945 = fieldWeight in 2347, product of:
              5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
                34.0 = termFreq=34.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2347)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - If an information retrieval system is going to be of value to the user then it must give meaning to the information which matches the meaning given to it by the user. The meaning given to music varies according to who is interpreting it - the author/composer, the performer, cataloguer or the listener - and this affects how music is organized and retrieved. This paper aims to examine the meaning of music, how meaning is communicated and suggests this may affect music retrieval. Design/methodology/approach - Musicology is used to define music and examine its functions leading to a discussion of how music has been organised and described. Various ways of establishing the meaning of music are reviewed, focussing on established musical analysis techniques. It is suggested that traditional methods are of limited use with digitised popular music. A discussion of semiotics and a review of semiotic analysis in western art music leads to a discussion of semiotics of popular music and examines ideas of Middleton, Stefani and Tagg. Findings - Agreeing that music exists when communication takes place, a discussion of selected communication models leads to the proposal of a revised version of Tagg's model, adjusting it to include listener feedback. Originality/value - The outcome of the analysis is a revised version of Tagg's communication model, adapted to reflect user feedback. It is suggested that this revised communication model reflects the way in which meaning is given to music.

Source

Journal of documentation. 64(2008) no.5, S.687-706

0.003925761 = product of:
  0.011777283 = sum of:
    0.011777283 = product of:
      0.023554565 = sum of:
        0.023554565 = weight(_text_:of in 849) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023554565 = score(doc=849,freq=22.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.34381276 = fieldWeight in 849, product of:
              4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
                22.0 = termFreq=22.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=849)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this research is to describe the development of an indexing template to guide the indexing of images using keywords. The template is designed to be used for indexing the image collection held at The Children's Society. Design/methodology/approach - A facet matrix based on analysis of existing studies was used to identify the most popular user query facets from user studies in the literature. A total of 33 archivists were surveyed regarding indexing practice and indexing wish-lists. The results of these investigative activities were synthesised to produce an indexing template. Findings - The results of this study suggest that indexing general entities and activities could be more comprehensive than is currently the case. A practical indexing template is proposed for organisations wishing to index image collections. Originality/value - This article reports a project undertaken on behalf of The Children's Society to design an image indexing system for use with their photographic collection. Its method of enquiry is based on an application and interpretation of the Shatford-Ensor matrix.

Source

Journal of documentation. 63(2007) no.6, S.898-919

0.003743066 = product of:
  0.0112291975 = sum of:
    0.0112291975 = product of:
      0.022458395 = sum of:
        0.022458395 = weight(_text_:of in 640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022458395 = score(doc=640,freq=20.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 640, product of:
              4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                20.0 = termFreq=20.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=640)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.0035509837 = product of:
  0.010652951 = sum of:
    0.010652951 = product of:
      0.021305902 = sum of:
        0.021305902 = weight(_text_:of in 2670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021305902 = score(doc=2670,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 2670, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2670)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

Issues regarding interpretation and the locus of meaning in the image sign (objectivist, constructionist or subjectivist) are clearly important in relation to reading images and are well documented in the literature (Svenonius, 1994; Shatford, 1984,1986; Layne, 1994; Enser, 1991, 1995; Rafferty Brown & Hidderley, 1996). The same issues of interpretation and reading pertain to image indexing tools which themselves are the result of choice, design and construction. Indexing becomes constrained and specific when a particular controlled vocabulary is adhered to. Indexing tools can often work better for one type of document than another. In this paper we discuss the different 'flavours' of three image retrieval tools: the Art and Architecture Thesaurus, Iconclass and the Library of Congress Thesaurus for Graphic Materials.

Object

Thesaurus of Geographic Names

Source

Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine

0.0035509837 = product of:
  0.010652951 = sum of:
    0.010652951 = product of:
      0.021305902 = sum of:
        0.021305902 = weight(_text_:of in 752) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021305902 = score(doc=752,freq=18.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 752, product of:
              4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
                18.0 = termFreq=18.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=752)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.0030878722 = product of:
  0.009263616 = sum of:
    0.009263616 = product of:
      0.018527232 = sum of:
        0.018527232 = weight(_text_:of in 119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.018527232 = score(doc=119,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.2704316 = fieldWeight in 119, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=119)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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'.

Source

Knowledge organization for a global learning society: Proceedings of the 9th International ISKO Conference, 4-7 July 2006, Vienna, Austria. Hrsg.: G. Budin, C. Swertz u. K. Mitgutsch

0.0027899165 = product of:
  0.008369749 = sum of:
    0.008369749 = product of:
      0.016739499 = sum of:
        0.016739499 = weight(_text_:of in 3543) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016739499 = score(doc=3543,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.06850986 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.043811057 = queryNorm
            0.24433708 = fieldWeight in 3543, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3543)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)