-
Hjoerland, B.: Subject representation and information seeking : contributions to a theory based on the theory of knowledge (1993)
0.10
0.097098045 = product of:
0.19419609 = sum of:
0.14020655 = weight(_text_:representation in 7555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.14020655 = score(doc=7555,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.042818543 = queryNorm
0.71167994 = fieldWeight in 7555, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7555)
0.05398954 = product of:
0.16196862 = sum of:
0.16196862 = weight(_text_:theory in 7555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.16196862 = score(doc=7555,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
0.042818543 = queryNorm
0.90964836 = fieldWeight in 7555, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=7555)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
-
Hjoerland, B.: Information seeking and subject representation : an activity-theoretical approach to information science (1997)
0.07
0.06826917 = product of:
0.13653834 = sum of:
0.120177045 = weight(_text_:representation in 6963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.120177045 = score(doc=6963,freq=8.0), product of:
0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.042818543 = queryNorm
0.6100114 = fieldWeight in 6963, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6963)
0.016361302 = product of:
0.049083903 = sum of:
0.049083903 = weight(_text_:theory in 6963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.049083903 = score(doc=6963,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
0.042818543 = queryNorm
0.27566507 = fieldWeight in 6963, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6963)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Information science has for a long time been drawing on the knowledge produced in psychology and related fields. This is reasonable, for the central issue in information science concerns individual users navigating information spaces such as libraries, databases, and the Internet, Thus, informations seeking is the fundamental problem in information science, while other problems, such as document representation, are subordinate. This book proposes a general theory of information seeking as a theoretical basis for information science
- Content
- Introduction - information seeking and subject representation - subject searching and subject representation data - subject analysis and knowledge organization - the concept of subject or subject matter and basic epistemological positions - methodological consequences for information science - science, discipline, and subject field as a framework for information seeking - information needs and cognitive and scientific development
-
Albrechtsen, H.; Hjoerland, B.: Information seeking and knowledge organization : the presentation of a new book (1997)
0.07
0.06610136 = product of:
0.13220271 = sum of:
0.099141 = weight(_text_:representation in 310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.099141 = score(doc=310,freq=4.0), product of:
0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.042818543 = queryNorm
0.50323373 = fieldWeight in 310, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=310)
0.033061706 = product of:
0.09918512 = sum of:
0.09918512 = weight(_text_:theory in 310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09918512 = score(doc=310,freq=6.0), product of:
0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
0.042818543 = queryNorm
0.55704355 = fieldWeight in 310, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=310)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- Recently, a new book on knowledge organization has been published by Greenwood Press. The title is 'Information seeking and subject representation: an activity-theoretical approach to information science'. This book presents a new general theory for information science and knowledge organization, based on a theory of information seeking. The author is Dr. Birger Hjørland, Royal School of Library and Information Science. In 1994, he presented his work on theory for KO at the 3rd International ISKO conference in Copenhagen. The book aims to provide both a new understanding for the foundations of information science and knowledge organization, and to provide new directions in research and teaching within these fields. KO (Hanne Albrechtsen) has interviewed Birger HjÝrland in Copenhagen about his views on knowledge organization and subject representation
-
Hjoerland, B.: Theories of knowledge organization - theories of knowledge (2017)
0.03
0.03471292 = product of:
0.13885169 = sum of:
0.13885169 = sum of:
0.057264555 = weight(_text_:theory in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.057264555 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
0.042818543 = queryNorm
0.32160926 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
0.040977873 = weight(_text_:29 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040977873 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15062225 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.042818543 = queryNorm
0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
0.04060925 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04060925 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14994325 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.042818543 = queryNorm
0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3494, 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=3494)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Pages
- S.22-36
- Source
- Theorie, Semantik und Organisation von Wissen: Proceedings der 13. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und dem 13. Internationalen Symposium der Informationswissenschaft der Higher Education Association for Information Science (HI) Potsdam (19.-20.03.2013): 'Theory, Information and Organization of Knowledge' / Proceedings der 14. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und Natural Language & Information Systems (NLDB) Passau (16.06.2015): 'Lexical Resources for Knowledge Organization' / Proceedings des Workshops der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) auf der SEMANTICS Leipzig (1.09.2014): 'Knowledge Organization and Semantic Web' / Proceedings des Workshops der Polnischen und Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) Cottbus (29.-30.09.2011): 'Economics of Knowledge Production and Organization'. Hrsg. von W. Babik, H.P. Ohly u. K. Weber
-
Hjoerland, B.: Description: Its meaning, epistemology, and use with emphasis on information science (2023)
0.03
0.034677878 = product of:
0.069355756 = sum of:
0.050073773 = weight(_text_:representation in 1193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050073773 = score(doc=1193,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.042818543 = queryNorm
0.25417143 = fieldWeight in 1193, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1193)
0.01928198 = product of:
0.057845935 = sum of:
0.057845935 = weight(_text_:theory in 1193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.057845935 = score(doc=1193,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
0.042818543 = queryNorm
0.3248744 = fieldWeight in 1193, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1193)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- This study examines the concept of "description" and its theoretical foundations. The literature about it is surprisingly limited, and its usage is vague, sometimes even conflicting. Description should be considered in relation to other processes, such as representation, data capturing, and categorizing, which raises the question about what it means to describe something. Description is often used for any type of predication but may better be limited to predications based on observations. Research aims to establish criteria for making optimal descriptions; however, the problems involved in describing something have seldom been addressed. Specific ideals are often followed without examine their fruitfulness. This study provides evidence that description cannot be a neutral, objective activity; rather, it is a theory-laden and interest-based activity. In information science, description occurs in processes such as document description, descriptive metadata assignment, and information resource description. In this field, description has equally been used in conflicting ways that mostly do not evince a recognition of the value- and theory-laden nature of descriptions. It is argued that descriptive activities in information science should always be based on consciously explicit considerations of the goals that descriptions are meant to serve.
-
Hjoerland, B.: Table of contents (ToC) (2022)
0.03
0.029871322 = product of:
0.059742644 = sum of:
0.050073773 = weight(_text_:representation in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.050073773 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.042818543 = queryNorm
0.25417143 = fieldWeight in 1096, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1096)
0.00966887 = product of:
0.02900661 = sum of:
0.02900661 = weight(_text_:22 in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.02900661 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
0.14994325 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
0.042818543 = queryNorm
0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1096, 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=1096)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.5 = coord(2/4)
- Abstract
- A table of contents (ToC) is a kind of document representation as well as a paratext and a kind of finding device to the document it represents. TOCs are very common in books and some other kinds of documents, but not in all kinds. This article discusses the definition and functions of ToC, normative guidelines for their design, and the history and forms of ToC in different kinds of documents and media. A main part of the article is about the role of ToC in information searching, in current awareness services and as items added to bibliographical records. The introduction and the conclusion focus on the core theoretical issues concerning ToCs. Should they be document-oriented or request-oriented, neutral, or policy-oriented, objective, or subjective? It is concluded that because of the special functions of ToCs, the arguments for the request-oriented (policy-oriented, subjective) view are weaker than they are in relation to indexing and knowledge organization in general. Apart from level of granularity, the evaluation of a ToC is difficult to separate from the evaluation of the structuring and naming of the elements of the structure of the document it represents.
- Date
- 18.11.2023 13:47:22
-
Hjoerland, B.: Towards a theory of aboutness, subject, topicality, theme, domain, field, content ... and relevance (2001)
0.02
0.020327032 = product of:
0.08130813 = sum of:
0.08130813 = product of:
0.12196218 = sum of:
0.08098431 = weight(_text_:theory in 6032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08098431 = score(doc=6032,freq=4.0), product of:
0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
0.042818543 = queryNorm
0.45482418 = fieldWeight in 6032, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6032)
0.040977873 = weight(_text_:29 in 6032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040977873 = score(doc=6032,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15062225 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.042818543 = queryNorm
0.27205724 = fieldWeight in 6032, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6032)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Theories of aboutness and theories of subject analysis and of related concepts such as topicality are often isolated from each other in the literature of information science (IS) and related disciplines. In IS it is important to consider the nature and meaning of these concepts, which is closely related to theoretical and metatheoretical issues in information retrieval (IR). A theory of IR must specify which concepts should be regarded as synonymous concepts and explain how the meaning of the nonsynonymous concepts should be defined
- Date
- 29. 9.2001 14:03:14
-
Hjoerland, B.: Domain analysis (2017)
0.02
0.018712845 = product of:
0.07485138 = sum of:
0.07485138 = product of:
0.11227706 = sum of:
0.06544521 = weight(_text_:theory in 3852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06544521 = score(doc=3852,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
0.042818543 = queryNorm
0.36755344 = fieldWeight in 3852, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3852)
0.046831857 = weight(_text_:29 in 3852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.046831857 = score(doc=3852,freq=2.0), product of:
0.15062225 = queryWeight, product of:
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.042818543 = queryNorm
0.31092256 = fieldWeight in 3852, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3852)
0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Content
- Beitrag in einem Special Issue: Selected Papers from the International UDC Seminar 2017, Faceted Classification Today: Theory, Technology and End Users, 14-15 September, London UK.
- Date
- 29. 9.2017 19:09:20
-
Lardera, M.; Hjoerland, B.: Keyword (2021)
0.02
0.015022131 = product of:
0.060088523 = sum of:
0.060088523 = weight(_text_:representation in 591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.060088523 = score(doc=591,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.042818543 = queryNorm
0.3050057 = fieldWeight in 591, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=591)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- This article discusses the different meanings of 'keyword' and related terms such as 'keyphrase', 'descriptor', 'index term', 'subject heading', 'tag' and 'n-gram' and suggests definitions of each of these terms. It further illustrates a classification of keywords, based on how they are produced or who is the actor generating them and present comparison between author-assigned keywords, indexer-assigned keywords and reader-assigned keywords as well as the automatic generation of keywords. The article also considers the functions of keywords including the use of keywords for generating bibliographic indexes. The theoretical view informing the article is that the assignment of a keyword to a text, picture or other document involves an interpretation of the document and an evaluation of the document's potentials for users. This perspective is important for both manually assigned keywords and for automated generation and is opposed to a strong tendency to consider a set of keywords as ideally presenting one best representation of a document for all requests.
-
Hjoerland, B.: Theories are knowledge organizing systems (KOS) (2015)
0.01
0.011569187 = product of:
0.04627675 = sum of:
0.04627675 = product of:
0.13883024 = sum of:
0.13883024 = weight(_text_:theory in 2193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.13883024 = score(doc=2193,freq=16.0), product of:
0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
0.042818543 = queryNorm
0.7796986 = fieldWeight in 2193, product of:
4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
16.0 = termFreq=16.0
4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2193)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- The notion "theory" is a neglected concept in the field of information science and knowledge organization (KO) as well as generally in philosophy and in many other fields, although there are exceptions from this general neglect (e.g., the so-called "theory theory" in cognitive psychology). This article introduces different conceptions of "theory" and argues that a theory is a statement or a conception, which is considered open to be questioned and which is connected with background assumptions. Theories form interconnected systems of grand, middle rank and micro theories and actions, practices and artifacts are theory-laden. The concept of knowledge organization system (KOS) is briefly introduced and discussed. A theory is a form of KOS and theories are the point of departure of any KOS. It is generally understood in KO that concepts are the units of KOSs, but the theory-dependence of concepts brings theories to the forefront in analyzing concepts and KOSs. The study of theories should therefore be given a high priority within KO concerning the construction and evaluation of KOSs.
-
Hjoerland, B.; Hartel, J.: Introduction to a Special Issue of Knowledge Organization (2003)
0.01
0.01084129 = product of:
0.04336516 = sum of:
0.04336516 = weight(_text_:representation in 3013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04336516 = score(doc=3013,freq=6.0), product of:
0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.042818543 = queryNorm
0.22011891 = fieldWeight in 3013, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3013)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- It is with very great pleasure that we introduce this special issue of Knowledge Organization on Domain Analysis (DA). Domain analysis is an approach to information science (IS) that emphasizes the social, historical, and cultural dimensions of information. It asserts that collective fields of knowledge, or "domains," form the unit of analysis of information science (IS). DA, elsewhere referred to as a sociocognitive (Hjoerland, 2002b; Jacob & Shaw, 1998) or collectivist (Talja et al, 2004) approach, is one of the major metatheoretical perspectives available to IS scholars to orient their thinking and research. DA's focus an domains stands in contrast to the alternative metatheories of cognitivism and information systems, which direct attention to psychological processes and technological processes, respectively. The first comprehensive international formulation of DA as an explicit point of view was Hjoerland and Albrechtsen (1995). However, a concern for information in the context of a community can be traced back to American library historian and visionary Jesse Shera, and is visible a century ago in the earliest practices of special librarians and European documentalists. More recently, Hjoerland (1998) produced a domain analytic study of the field of psychology; Jacob and Shaw (1998) made an important interpretation and historical review of DA; while Hjoerland (2002a) offered a seminal formulation of eleven approaches to the study of domains, receiving the ASLIB 2003 Award. Fjordback Soendergaard; Andersen and Hjoerland (2003) suggested an approach based an an updated version of the UNISIST-model of scientific communication. In fall 2003, under the conference theme of "Humanizing Information Technology" DA was featured in a keynote address at the annual meeting of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (Hjorland, 2004). These publications and events are evidence of growth in representation of the DA view. To date, informal criticism of domain analysis has followed two tracks. Firstly, that DA assumes its communities to be academic in nature, leaving much of human experience unexplored. Secondly, that there is a lack of case studies illustrating the methods of domain analytic empirical research. Importantly, this special collection marks progress by addressing both issues. In the articles that follow, domains are perceived to be hobbies, professions, and realms of popular culture. Further, other papers serve as models of different ways to execute domain analytic scholarship, whether through traditional empirical methods, or historical and philosophical techniques. Eleven authors have contributed to this special issue, and their backgrounds reflect the diversity of interest in DA. Contributors come from North America, Europe, and the Middle East. Academics from leading research universities are represented. One writer is newly retired, several are in their heyday as scholars, and some are doctoral students just entering this field. This range of perspectives enriches the collection. The first two papers in this issue are invited papers and are, in our opinion, very important. Anders Oerom was a senior lecturer at the Royal Scbool of 'Library and Information Science in Denmark, Aalborg Branch. He retired from this position an March 1, 2004, and this paper is his last contribution in this position. We are grateful that he took the time to complete "Knowledge Organization in the Domain of Art Studies - History, Transition and Conceptual Changes" in spite of many other duties. Versions of the paper have previously been presented at a Ph.D-course in knowledge organization and related versions have been published in Danish and Spanish. In many respects, it represents a model of how a domain could, or should, be investigated from the DA point of view.
It uncovers the main theoretical influences that have affected the representation of art in systems of knowledge organization such as LCC, DDC, UDC and the Art & Architecture Thesaurus, and it provides a deep basis for evaluating such systems. Knut Tore Abrahamsen's "Indexing of Musical Genres. An Epistemological Perspective" is a modified version of a thesis written at the Royal School of Library and Information Science in Copenhagen. As a thesis it is a major achievement which successfully combines knowledge of music, epistemology, and knowledge organization. This paper may also be seen as an example of how domains can be analyzed and how knowledge organization may be improved in practice. We would like to thank Sanna Talja of the University of Tampere, among other people, for Input an this piece. And now to the rest of the issue: Olof Sundin's "Towards an Understanding of Symbolic Aspects of Professional Information: an Analysis of the Nursing Knowledge Domain" contributes to DA by introducing a deeper understanding of the notion of professions and by uncovering how in some domains, "symbolic" functions of information may be more important than instrumental functions. Rich Gazan's: "Metadata as a Realm of Translation: Merging Knowledge Domains in the Design of an Environmental Information System" demonstrates the problems of merging data collections in interdisciplinary fields, rohen the perceived informational value of different access points varies with disciplinary membership. This is important for the design of systems of metadata. Joe Tennis': "Two Axes of Domains for Domain Analysis" suggests that the notion of domain is underdeveloped in DA. Tennis states, "Hjoerland has provided a hammer, but rohere are the nails?" In addition he raises a question concerning the degree of specialization within a domain. He resolves these issues by proposing two new "axes" to DA. Chaim Zins & David Guttmann's: "Domain Analysis of Social Work: An Example of an Integrated Methodological Approach" represents an empirical approach to the construction of knowledge maps based an representative samples of the literature an social work. In a way, this paper is the most traditional or straightforward approach to knowledge organization in the issue: It suggests a concrete classification based an scientific norms of representation and objectivity.
-
Hjoerland, B.: ¬The methodology of constructing classification schemes : a discussion of the state-of-the-art (2003)
0.01
0.010014754 = product of:
0.040059015 = sum of:
0.040059015 = weight(_text_:representation in 2760) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.040059015 = score(doc=2760,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.042818543 = queryNorm
0.20333713 = fieldWeight in 2760, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2760)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Source
- Challenges in knowledge representation and organization for the 21st century: Integration of knowledge across boundaries. Proceedings of the 7th ISKO International Conference Granada, Spain, July 10-13, 2002. Ed.: M. López-Huertas
-
Hjoerland, B.: Answer to Professor Szostak (concept theory) (2010)
0.01
0.009446202 = product of:
0.037784807 = sum of:
0.037784807 = product of:
0.11335442 = sum of:
0.11335442 = weight(_text_:theory in 3323) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.11335442 = score(doc=3323,freq=6.0), product of:
0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
0.042818543 = queryNorm
0.63662124 = fieldWeight in 3323, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3323)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Content
- Bezug zu: Hjoerland, B.: Concept theory. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.8, S.1519-1536.
- Footnote
- Erwiderung zu: Szostak, R.: Comment on Hjørland's concept theory Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.5, S.1076-1077.
-
Hjoerland, B.: Theory of information science : Reply to Professor Gernot Wersig (1998)
0.01
0.008180651 = product of:
0.032722604 = sum of:
0.032722604 = product of:
0.09816781 = sum of:
0.09816781 = weight(_text_:theory in 403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09816781 = score(doc=403,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
0.042818543 = queryNorm
0.55133015 = fieldWeight in 403, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=403)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
-
Hjoerland, B.: Theory of knowledge organization and the feasibility of universal solutions (2004)
0.01
0.008180651 = product of:
0.032722604 = sum of:
0.032722604 = product of:
0.09816781 = sum of:
0.09816781 = weight(_text_:theory in 2404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09816781 = score(doc=2404,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
0.042818543 = queryNorm
0.55133015 = fieldWeight in 2404, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=2404)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
-
Hjoerland, B.: ¬The paradox of atheoretical classification (2016)
0.01
0.008180651 = product of:
0.032722604 = sum of:
0.032722604 = product of:
0.09816781 = sum of:
0.09816781 = weight(_text_:theory in 3169) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09816781 = score(doc=3169,freq=8.0), product of:
0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
0.042818543 = queryNorm
0.55133015 = fieldWeight in 3169, product of:
2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
8.0 = termFreq=8.0
4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3169)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- A distinction can be made between "artificial classifications" and "natural classifications," where artificial classifications may adequately serve some limited purposes, but natural classifications are overall most fruitful by allowing inference and thus many different purposes. There is strong support for the view that a natural classification should be based on a theory (and, of course, that the most fruitful theory provides the most fruitful classification). Nevertheless, atheoretical (or "descriptive") classifications are often produced. Paradoxically, atheoretical classifications may be very successful. The best example of a successful "atheoretical" classification is probably the prestigious Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) since its third edition from 1980. Based on such successes one may ask: Should the claim that classifications ideally are natural and theory-based be reconsidered? This paper argues that the seemingly success of atheoretical classifications hides deeper problems and that the ideal of theory-based classification should be maintained.
-
Hjoerland, B.: Does informetrics need a theory? : a rejoinder to professor anthony van raan (2017)
0.01
0.008180651 = product of:
0.032722604 = sum of:
0.032722604 = product of:
0.09816781 = sum of:
0.09816781 = weight(_text_:theory in 3967) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.09816781 = score(doc=3967,freq=2.0), product of:
0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
0.042818543 = queryNorm
0.55133015 = fieldWeight in 3967, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3967)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
-
Hjoerland, B.: ¬The special competency of information specialists (2002)
0.01
0.0075110653 = product of:
0.030044261 = sum of:
0.030044261 = weight(_text_:representation in 1265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.030044261 = score(doc=1265,freq=2.0), product of:
0.19700786 = queryWeight, product of:
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.042818543 = queryNorm
0.15250285 = fieldWeight in 1265, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.600994 = idf(docFreq=1206, maxDocs=44218)
0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1265)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Content
- "In a new article published in Journal of Documentation, 2002, I claim that the special competency of information specialists and information scientists are related to "domain analysis." Information science grew out of special librarianship and documentation (cf. Williams, 1997), and implicit in its tradition has in my opinion been a focus an subject knowledge. Although domain analysis has earlier been introduced in JASIST (Hjoerland & Albrechtsen, 1995), the new article introduces 11 Specific approaches to domain analysis, which I Claim together define the Specific competencies of information specialists. The approaches are (I) Producing and evaluating literature guides and subject gateways, (2) Producing and evaluating special classifications and thesauri, (3) Research an and competencies in indexing and retrieving information specialties, (4) Knowledge about empirical user studies in subject areas, (5) Producing and interpreting bibliometrical studies, (6) Historical studies of information structures and Services in domains, (7) Studies of documents and genres in knowledge domains, (8) Epistemological and critical studies of different paradigms, assumptions, and interests in domains, (9) Knowledge about terminological studies, LSP (Languages for Special Purposes), and discourse analysis in knowledge fields, (10) Knowledge about and studies of structures and institutions in scientific and professional communication in a domain, (11) Knowledge about methods and results from domain analytic studies about professional cognition, knowledge representation in computer science and artificial intelligence. By bringing these approaches together, the paper advocates a view which may have been implicit in previous literature but which has not before been Set out systematically. The approaches presented here are neither exhaustive nor mutually exhaustve, but an attempt is made to present the state of the art. Specific examples and selective reviews of literature are provided, and the strength and drawback of each of these approaches are being discussed. It is my Claim that the information specialist who has worked with these 1 1 approaches in a given domain (e.g., music, sociology, or chemistry) has a special expertise that should not be mixed up with the kind of expertise taught at universities in corresponding subjects. Some of these 11 approaches are today well-known in schools of LIS. Bibliometrics is an example, Other approaches are new and represent a view of what should be introduced in the training of information professionals. First and foremost does the article advocates the view that these 1 1 approaches should be seen as supplementary. That the Professional identity is best maintained if Chose methods are applied to the same examples (same domain). Somebody would perhaps feel that this would make the education of information professionals too narrow. The Counter argument is that you can only understand and use these methods properly in a new domain, if you already have a deep knowledge of the Specific information problems in at least orte domain. It is a dangerous illusion to believe that one becomes more competent to work in any field if orte does not know anything about any domain. The special challenge in our science is to provide general background for use in Specific fields. This is what domain analysis is developed for. Study programs that allow the students to specialize and to work independent in the selected field (such as, for example, the Curriculum at the Royal School of LIS in Denmark) should fit well with the intentions in domain analysis. In this connection it should be emphasized that the 11 approaches are presented as general approaches that may be used in about any domain whatsoever. They should, however, be seen in connection. If this is not the case, then their relative strengths and weaknesses cannot be evaluated. The approaches do not have the same status. Some (e.g., empirical user studies) are dependent an others (e.g., epistemological studies).
-
Hjoerland, B.: Concepts, paradigms and knowledge organization (2010)
0.01
0.007084652 = product of:
0.028338607 = sum of:
0.028338607 = product of:
0.08501582 = sum of:
0.08501582 = weight(_text_:theory in 3512) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.08501582 = score(doc=3512,freq=6.0), product of:
0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
0.042818543 = queryNorm
0.47746593 = fieldWeight in 3512, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3512)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- It is argued that concepts are the building blocks of knowledge organizing systems (KOS). Objections to this view are considered and answers are provided. By implication the theory of concepts constitutes the foundation for knowledge organization (KO). The theory of concepts is understood as related to and derived from theories of knowledge. Different theories of knowledge such as empiricism, rationalism, historicism and pragmatism imply different theories of concepts. Such different epistemologies and their associated theories of concepts represent different methodological ideals which probably compete in all knowledge domains. Different approaches to KO are also in fundamental ways associated with different theories of concepts. The paper holds that the historicist and pragmatic theory of concept should be considered most valuable. By implication is it is necessary to know about competing theories in the fields being organized. A further implication of the pragmatic view is that the construction of a KOS must be understood as a way of participating in the discourses in the domain that is being represented.
-
Hjoerland, B.: Concept theory (2009)
0.01
0.0059038764 = product of:
0.023615506 = sum of:
0.023615506 = product of:
0.07084651 = sum of:
0.07084651 = weight(_text_:theory in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.07084651 = score(doc=3461,freq=6.0), product of:
0.1780563 = queryWeight, product of:
4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
0.042818543 = queryNorm
0.39788827 = fieldWeight in 3461, product of:
2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
6.0 = termFreq=6.0
4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3461)
0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
0.25 = coord(1/4)
- Abstract
- Concept theory is an extremely broad, interdisciplinary and complex field of research related to many deep fields with very long historical traditions without much consensus. However, information science and knowledge organization cannot avoid relating to theories of concepts. Knowledge organizing systems (e.g., classification systems, thesauri, and ontologies) should be understood as systems basically organizing concepts and their semantic relations. The same is the case with information retrieval systems. Different theories of concepts have different implications for how to construe, evaluate, and use such systems. Based on a post-Kuhnian view of paradigms, this article put forward arguments that the best understanding and classification of theories of concepts is to view and classify them in accordance with epistemological theories (empiricism, rationalism, historicism, and pragmatism). It is also argued that the historicist and pragmatist understandings of concepts are the most fruitful views and that this understanding may be part of a broader paradigm shift that is also beginning to take place in information science. The importance of historicist and pragmatic theories of concepts for information science is outlined.
- Footnote
- Vgl.: Szostak, R.: Comment on Hjørland's concept theory in: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.5, S. 1076-1077 und die Erwiderung darauf von B. Hjoerland (S.1078-1080)
