Search (69 results, page 1 of 4)

0.055220228 = product of:
  0.1288472 = sum of:
    0.020754656 = weight(_text_:management in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020754656 = score(doc=2346,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.14896142 = fieldWeight in 2346, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2346)
    0.03530979 = weight(_text_:case in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03530979 = score(doc=2346,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.1942959 = fieldWeight in 2346, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2346)
    0.07278275 = sum of:
      0.05038069 = weight(_text_:studies in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05038069 = score(doc=2346,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041336425 = queryNorm
          0.30544177 = fieldWeight in 2346, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2346)
      0.02240206 = weight(_text_:22 in 2346) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02240206 = score(doc=2346,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14475311 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041336425 = queryNorm
          0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2346, 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=2346)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)

Abstract

Purpose - Potential and benefits of classification schemes and thesauri in building organizational taxonomies cannot be fully utilized by organizations. Empirical data of building an organizational taxonomy by the top-down approach of using classification schemes and thesauri appear to be lacking. The paper seeks to make a contribution in this regard. Design/methodology/approach - A case study of building an organizational taxonomy was conducted in the information studies domain for the Division of Information Studies at Nanyang Technology University, Singapore. The taxonomy was built by using the Dewey Decimal Classification, the Information Science Taxonomy, two information systems taxonomies, and three thesauri (ASIS&T, LISA, and ERIC). Findings - Classification schemes and thesauri were found to be helpful in creating the structure and categories related to the subject facet of the taxonomy, but organizational community sources had to be consulted and several methods had to be employed. The organizational activities and stakeholders' needs had to be identified to determine the objectives, facets, and the subject coverage of the taxonomy. Main categories were determined by identifying the stakeholders' interests and consulting organizational community sources and domain taxonomies. Category terms were selected from terminologies of classification schemes, domain taxonomies, and thesauri against the stakeholders' interests. Hierarchical structures of the main categories were constructed in line with the stakeholders' perspectives and the navigational role taking advantage of structures/term relationships from classification schemes and thesauri. Categories were determined in line with the concepts and the hierarchical levels. Format of categories were uniformed according to a commonly used standard. The consistency principle was employed to make the taxonomy structure and categories neater. Validation of the draft taxonomy through consultations with the stakeholders further refined the taxonomy. Originality/value - No similar study could be traced in the literature. The steps and methods used in the taxonomy development, and the information studies taxonomy itself, will be helpful for library and information schools and other similar organizations in their effort to develop taxonomies for organizing content and aiding navigation on organizational sites.

Date

7.11.2008 15:22:04

Theme

Information Resources Management

0.045390923 = product of:
  0.10591215 = sum of:
    0.031131983 = weight(_text_:management in 2631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031131983 = score(doc=2631,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.22344214 = fieldWeight in 2631, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2631)
    0.052964687 = weight(_text_:case in 2631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052964687 = score(doc=2631,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 2631, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2631)
    0.021815477 = product of:
      0.043630954 = sum of:
        0.043630954 = weight(_text_:studies in 2631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.043630954 = score(doc=2631,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.26452032 = fieldWeight in 2631, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2631)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.42857143 = coord(3/7)

Abstract

The paper examines the way in which classification schemes can be applied to the organization of digital resources. The case is argued for the particular suitability of schemes based an faceted principles for the organization of complex digital objects. Details are given of a co-operative project between the School of Library Archive & Information Studies, University College London, and the United Kingdom Higher Education gateways Arts and Humanities Data Service and Humbul, in which a faceted knowledge structure is being developed for the indexing and display of digital materials within a new combined humanities portal.

0.0309997 = product of:
  0.108498946 = sum of:
    0.04413724 = weight(_text_:case in 1417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04413724 = score(doc=1417,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 1417, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1417)
    0.06436171 = sum of:
      0.03635913 = weight(_text_:studies in 1417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.03635913 = score(doc=1417,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041336425 = queryNorm
          0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 1417, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1417)
      0.028002575 = weight(_text_:22 in 1417) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028002575 = score(doc=1417,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14475311 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.041336425 = 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)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

In recent years, Hjørland has developed a typology of basic epistemological approaches to KO that identifies four basic positions - empiricism, rationalism, historicism/hermeneutics, and pragmatism -with which to characterize the epistemological bases and methodological orientation of KOSs. Although scholars of KO have noted that the design of a single KOS may incorporate epistemological-methodological features from more than one of these approaches, studies of concrete examples of epistemologico-methodological eclecticism have been rare. In this paper, we consider the phenomenon of epistemologico-methodological eclecticism in one theoretically significant family of KOSs - namely analytico-synthetic, or faceted, KOSs - by examining two cases - Julius Otto Kaiser's method of Systematic Indexing (SI) and Brian Vickery's method of facet analysis (FA) for document classification. We show that both of these systems combined classical features of rationalism with elements of empiricism and pragmatism and argue that such eclecticism is the norm, rather than the exception, for such KOSs in general.

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

0.028487684 = product of:
  0.09970689 = sum of:
    0.07061958 = weight(_text_:case in 1603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07061958 = score(doc=1603,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.3885918 = fieldWeight in 1603, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1603)
    0.029087303 = product of:
      0.058174606 = sum of:
        0.058174606 = weight(_text_:studies in 1603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.058174606 = score(doc=1603,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.35269377 = fieldWeight in 1603, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1603)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Discusses the basic criteria for comparison of classification for libraries. Identifies a set of intellectual criteria, derived from the general theory of library classification as expounded by Dewey, Bliss, and Ranganathan. Compares LC, DC, and BC in relation criteria namely - order, university, hospitality, adaptability, terminology, relationship, synthesis, notational features - simplicity, brevity, expressiveness, specifity, synonymity, flexibility, correlation, case of use, revision and practical use. Highlights the value of comparative studies among classification schemes

0.017804801 = product of:
  0.062316805 = sum of:
    0.04413724 = weight(_text_:case in 3869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04413724 = score(doc=3869,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 3869, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3869)
    0.018179566 = product of:
      0.03635913 = sum of:
        0.03635913 = weight(_text_:studies in 3869) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03635913 = score(doc=3869,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 3869, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3869)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The changes in KO systems induced by sociocultural influences may include those in both classificatory principles and cultural features. The proposed study will examine the Korean Decimal Classification (KDC)'s adaptation of the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) by comparing the two systems. This case manifests the sociocultural influences on KOSs in a cross-cultural context. Therefore, the study aims at an in-depth investigation of sociocultural influences by situating a KOS in a cross-cultural environment and examining the dynamics between two classification systems designed to organize information resources in two distinct sociocultural contexts. As a preceding stage of the comparison, the analysis was conducted on the changes that result from the meeting of different sociocultural feature in a descriptive method. The analysis aims to identify variations between the two schemes in comparison of the knowledge structures of the two classifications, in terms of the quantity of class numbers that represent concepts and their relationships in each of the individual main classes. The most effective analytic strategy to show the patterns of the comparison was visualizations of similarities and differences between the two systems. Increasing or decreasing tendencies in the class through various editions were analyzed. Comparing the compositions of the main classes and distributions of concepts in the KDC and DDC discloses the differences in their knowledge structures empirically. This phase of quantitative analysis and visualizing techniques generates empirical evidence leading to interpretation.

0.016611008 = product of:
  0.058138527 = sum of:
    0.04413724 = weight(_text_:case in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04413724 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 1418, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1418)
    0.0140012875 = product of:
      0.028002575 = sum of:
        0.028002575 = weight(_text_:22 in 1418) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028002575 = score(doc=1418,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14475311 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

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

0.016611008 = product of:
  0.058138527 = sum of:
    0.04413724 = weight(_text_:case in 2282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04413724 = score(doc=2282,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 2282, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2282)
    0.0140012875 = product of:
      0.028002575 = sum of:
        0.028002575 = weight(_text_:22 in 2282) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028002575 = score(doc=2282,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14475311 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 2282, 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=2282)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The structure of a classification system contributes in a variety of ways to representing semantic relationships between its topics in the context of subject authority control. We explore this claim using the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) system as a case study. The DDC links its classes into a notational hierarchy, supplemented by a network of relationships between topics, expressed in class descriptions and in the Relative Index (RI). Topics/subjects are expressed both by the natural language text of the caption and notes (including Manual notes) in a class description and by the controlled vocabulary of the RI's alphabetic index, which shows where topics are treated in the classificatory structure. The expression of relationships between topics depends on paradigmatic and syntagmatic relationships between natural language terms in captions, notes, and RI terms; on the meaning of specific note types; and on references recorded between RI terms. The specific means used in the DDC for capturing hierarchical (including disciplinary), equivalence and associative relationships are surveyed.

Date

8.11.2015 21:27:22

0.0142673105 = product of:
  0.099871166 = sum of:
    0.099871166 = weight(_text_:case in 275) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.099871166 = score(doc=275,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.5495518 = fieldWeight in 275, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=275)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

This article introduces the problem of collocative integrity present in long-lived classification schemes that undergo several changes. A case study of the subject "eugenics" in the Dewey Decimal Classification is presented to illustrate this phenomenon. Eugenics is strange because of the kinds of changes it undergoes. The article closes with a discussion of subject ontogeny as the name for this phenomenon and describes implications for information searching and browsing.

0.014243842 = product of:
  0.049853444 = sum of:
    0.03530979 = weight(_text_:case in 3636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03530979 = score(doc=3636,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.1942959 = fieldWeight in 3636, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3636)
    0.014543652 = product of:
      0.029087303 = sum of:
        0.029087303 = weight(_text_:studies in 3636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029087303 = score(doc=3636,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.17634688 = fieldWeight in 3636, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3636)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

Brian C. Vickery, Director and Professor, School of Library, Archive and Information Studies, University College, London, is a prolific writer on classification and information retrieval. This paper was one of the earliest to present initial efforts by the Classification Research Group (q.v.). In it he clearly outlined the need for classification in subject indexing, which, at the time he wrote, was not a commonplace understanding. In fact, some indexing systems were made in the first place specifically to avoid general classification systems which were out of date in all fast-moving disciplines, especially in the "hard" sciences. Vickery picked up Julia Pettee's work (q.v.) an the concealed classification in subject headings (1947) and added to it, mainly adopting concepts from the work of S. R. Ranganathan (q.v.). He had already published a paper an notation in classification, pointing out connections between notation, words, and the concepts which they represent. He was especially concerned about the structure of notational symbols as such symbols represented relationships among subjects. Vickery also emphasized that index terms cover all aspects of a subject so that, in addition to having a basis in classification, the ideal index system should also have standardized nomenclature, as weIl as show evidence of a systematic classing of elementary terms. The necessary linkage between system and terms should be one of a number of methods, notably:
- adding a relational term ("operator") to identify and join terms; - indicating grammatical case with terms where this would help clarify relationships; and - analyzing elementary terms to reveal fundamental categories where needed. He further added that a standard order for showing relational factors was highly desirable. Eventually, some years later, he was able to suggest such an order. This was accepted by his peers in the Classification Research Group, and utilized by Derek Austin in PRECIS (q.v.). Vickery began where Farradane began - with perception (a sound base according to current cognitive psychology). From this came further recognition of properties, parts, constituents, organs, effects, reactions, operations (physical and mental), added to the original "identity," "difference," "class membership," and "species." By defining categories more carefully, Vickery arrived at six (in addition to space (geographic) and time): - personality, thing, substance (e.g., dog, bicycle, rose) - part (e.g., paw, wheel, leaf) - substance (e.g., copper, water, butter) - action (e.g., scattering) - property (e.g., length, velocity) - operation (e.g., analysis, measurement) Thus, as early as 1953, the foundations were already laid for research that ultimately produced very sophisticated systems, such as PRECIS.

0.012606538 = product of:
  0.044122882 = sum of:
    0.025943318 = weight(_text_:management in 2720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025943318 = score(doc=2720,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.18620178 = fieldWeight in 2720, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2720)
    0.018179566 = product of:
      0.03635913 = sum of:
        0.03635913 = weight(_text_:studies in 2720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03635913 = score(doc=2720,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.22043361 = fieldWeight in 2720, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2720)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The facet-analytic paradigm is probably the most distinct approach to knowledge organization within Library and Information Science, and in many ways it has dominated what has be termed "modern classification theory". It was mainly developed by S.R. Ranganathan and the British Classification Research Group, but it is mostly based on principles of logical division developed more than two millennia ago. Colon Classification (CC) and Bliss 2 (BC2) are among the most important systems developed on this theoretical basis, but it has also influenced the development of other systems, such as the Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC) and is also applied in many websites. It still has a strong position in the field and it is the most explicit and "pure" theoretical approach to knowledge organization (KO) (but it is not by implication necessarily also the most important one). The strength of this approach is its logical principles and the way it provides structures in knowledge organization systems (KOS). The main weaknesses are (1) its lack of empirical basis and (2) its speculative ordering of knowledge without basis in the development or influence of theories and socio-historical studies. It seems to be based on the problematic assumption that relations between concepts are a priori and not established by the development of models, theories and laws.

Source

Information processing and management. 49(2013) no.2, S.545-557

0.009130197 = product of:
  0.031955685 = sum of:
    0.020754656 = weight(_text_:management in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020754656 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.14896142 = fieldWeight in 2763, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2763)
    0.01120103 = product of:
      0.02240206 = sum of:
        0.02240206 = weight(_text_:22 in 2763) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02240206 = score(doc=2763,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14475311 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 2763, 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=2763)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2857143 = coord(2/7)

Abstract

The different points of views an knowledge representation and organization from various research communities reflect underlying philosophies and paradigms in these communities. This paper reviews differences and relations in knowledge representation and organization and generalizes four paradigms-integrative and disintegrative pragmatism and integrative and disintegrative epistemologism. Examples such as classification, XML schemas, and ontologies are compared based an how they specify concepts, build data models, and encode knowledge organization structures. 1. Introduction Knowledge representation (KR) is a term that several research communities use to refer to somewhat different aspects of the same research area. The artificial intelligence (AI) community considers KR as simply "something to do with writing down, in some language or communications medium, descriptions or pictures that correspond in some salient way to the world or a state of the world" (Duce & Ringland, 1988, p. 3). It emphasizes the ways in which knowledge can be encoded in a computer program (Bench-Capon, 1990). For the library and information science (LIS) community, KR is literally the synonym of knowledge organization, i.e., KR is referred to as the process of organizing knowledge into classifications, thesauri, or subject heading lists. KR has another meaning in LIS: it "encompasses every type and method of indexing, abstracting, cataloguing, classification, records management, bibliography and the creation of textual or bibliographic databases for information retrieval" (Anderson, 1996, p. 336). Adding the social dimension to knowledge organization, Hjoerland (1997) states that knowledge is a part of human activities and tied to the division of labor in society, which should be the primary organization of knowledge. Knowledge organization in LIS is secondary or derived, because knowledge is organized in learned institutions and publications. These different points of views an KR suggest that an essential difference in the understanding of KR between both AI and LIS lies in the source of representationwhether KR targets human activities or derivatives (knowledge produced) from human activities. This difference also decides their difference in purpose-in AI KR is mainly computer-application oriented or pragmatic and the result of representation is used to support decisions an human activities, while in LIS KR is conceptually oriented or abstract and the result of representation is used for access to derivatives from human activities.

Date

12. 9.2004 17:22:35

0.008827448 = product of:
  0.061792135 = sum of:
    0.061792135 = weight(_text_:case in 851) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061792135 = score(doc=851,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.34001783 = fieldWeight in 851, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=851)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Content

This article compares the qualitative method of grounded theory (GT) with Ranganathan's construction of faceted classifications (FC) in library and information science. Both struggle with a core problem-i.e., the representation of vernacular words and processes, empirically discovered, which will, although ethnographically faithful, be powerful beyond the single instance or case study. The article compares Glaser and Strauss's (1967) work with that of Ranganathan(1950).

0.008827448 = product of:
  0.061792135 = sum of:
    0.061792135 = weight(_text_:case in 5541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061792135 = score(doc=5541,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.34001783 = fieldWeight in 5541, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5541)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

0.007566384 = product of:
  0.052964687 = sum of:
    0.052964687 = weight(_text_:case in 3005) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052964687 = score(doc=3005,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 3005, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3005)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Work centered design of classification schemes is an emerging area of research which poses particular challenges to domain analysis and scheme construction. A key challenge in work centered design of classification schemes is the evolving semantics of work. This article introduces a work centered approach to the design of classification schemes, based an the framework of cognitive work analysis. We launch collaborative task situations as a new unit of analysis for capturing evolving semantic structures in work domains. An example case from a cognitive work analysis of three national film research archives illustrates the application of the framework for identifying actors' needs for a classification scheme to support collaborative knowledge integration. It is concluded that a main contribution of the new approach is support for empirical analysis and overall design of classification schemes that can serve as material interfaces for actors' negotiations and integration of knowledge perspectives during collaborative work.

0.007566384 = product of:
  0.052964687 = sum of:
    0.052964687 = weight(_text_:case in 3177) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052964687 = score(doc=3177,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 3177, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3177)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

After making the case that phenomena can be the primary unit of classification (Part 1), some basic principles to group and sort phenomena are considered. Entities can be grouped together on the basis of both their similarity (morphology) and their common origin (phylogeny). The resulting groups will form the classical hierarchical chains of types and subtypes. At every hierarchical degree, phenomena can form ordered sets (arrays), where their sorting can reflect levels of increasing organization, corresponding to an evolutionary order of appearance (emergence). The theory of levels of reality has been investigated by many philosophers and applied to knowledge organization systems by various authors, which are briefly reviewed. At the broadest degree, it allows to identify some major strata of phenomena (forms, matter, life, minds, societies and culture) in turn divided into layers. A list of twenty-six layers is proposed to form the main classes of the Integrative Levels Classification system. A combination of morphology and phylogeny can determine whether a given phenomenon should be a type of an existing level, or a level on its own.

0.007566384 = product of:
  0.052964687 = sum of:
    0.052964687 = weight(_text_:case in 4121) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052964687 = score(doc=4121,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.29144385 = fieldWeight in 4121, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4121)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

A description is provided of basic faceted classification, which involves combinations of foci across facets, where the foci within a facet are dependent (i.e., exclusive) and the foci across facets are independent (i.e., orthogonal). This is shown to be suitable for organizing the basic goods that Amazon, the online retailer, sells and for progressive filtering as a mode of search. However, on closer inspection, the Amazon case involves a sorted domain. This is problematic for basic faceted classification. Additionally, books from Amazon would typically carry subject classification, which also is difficult for basic faceted classification. It does not support filtering as a mode of search. Subject classification really requires relatively sophisticated linguistic and logical constructors and modifiers, such as adjectives, adverbs, functions, binary relations, and transitive verbs. These can be part of a synthetic subject classification scheme, but they pose a challenge for faceting.

0.0072718263 = product of:
  0.05090278 = sum of:
    0.05090278 = product of:
      0.10180556 = sum of:
        0.10180556 = weight(_text_:studies in 3004) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10180556 = score(doc=3004,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.6172141 = fieldWeight in 3004, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3004)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Indian journal of library studies. 2(1991) no.2, S.163-168

0.0072718263 = product of:
  0.05090278 = sum of:
    0.05090278 = product of:
      0.10180556 = sum of:
        0.10180556 = weight(_text_:studies in 6152) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10180556 = score(doc=6152,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16494368 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.041336425 = queryNorm
            0.6172141 = fieldWeight in 6152, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.9902744 = idf(docFreq=2222, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6152)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Source

Library science with a slant to documentation and information studies. 36(1999) no.2, S.73-77

0.00630532 = product of:
  0.04413724 = sum of:
    0.04413724 = weight(_text_:case in 5313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04413724 = score(doc=5313,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18173204 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.24286987 = fieldWeight in 5313, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.3964143 = idf(docFreq=1480, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5313)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

Astronomy classification is often overlooked in classification discourse. Its rarity and obscurity, especially within UK librarianship, suggests it is an underdeveloped strand of classification research and is possibly undervalued in modern librarianship. The purpose of this research is to investigate the suitability and practicalities of the discipline of astronomy adopting a subject-specific faceted classification scheme and to provide a provi-sional outline of a special faceted astronomy classification scheme. The research demonstrates that the application of universal schemes for astronomy classification had left the interdisciplinary subject ill catered for and outdated, making accurate classification difficult for specialist astronomy collections. A faceted approach to classification development is supported by two qualitative literature-based research methods: historical research into astronomy classification and an analytico-synthetic classification case study. The subsequent classification development is influenced through a pragmatic and scholarly-scientific approach and constructed by means of instruction from faceted classification guides by Vickery (1960) and Batley (2005), and faceted classification principles from Ranaganathan (1937). This research fills a gap within classification discourse on specialist interdisciplinary subjects, specifically within astronomy and demonstrates the best means for their classification. It provides a means of assessing further the value of faceted classification within astronomy librarianship.

0.006289611 = product of:
  0.044027276 = sum of:
    0.044027276 = weight(_text_:management in 2651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.044027276 = score(doc=2651,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13932906 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.041336425 = queryNorm
        0.31599492 = fieldWeight in 2651, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.3706124 = idf(docFreq=4130, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2651)
  0.14285715 = coord(1/7)

Abstract

The paper analyses the importance of data presentation and modelling and its role in improving the management, use and exchange of analytico-synthetic classifications in automated systems. Inefficiencies, in this respect, hinder the automation of classification systems that offer the possibility of building compound index/search terms. The lack of machine readable data expressing the semantics and structure of a classification vocabulary has negative effects on information management and retrieval, thus restricting the potential of both automated systems and classifications themselves. The authors analysed the data representation structure of three general analytico-synthetic classification systems (BC2-Bliss Bibliographic Classification; BSO-Broad System of Ordering; UDC-Universal Decimal Classification) and put forward some core requirements for classification data representation