Search (43 results, page 1 of 3)

0.06284172 = product of:
  0.12568344 = sum of:
    0.12568344 = sum of:
      0.08370827 = weight(_text_:theory in 2608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.08370827 = score(doc=2608,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05163523 = queryNorm
          0.3898493 = fieldWeight in 2608, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2608)
      0.041975167 = weight(_text_:22 in 2608) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041975167 = score(doc=2608,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.18081778 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.05163523 = queryNorm
          0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2608, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2608)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

This paper surveys the English-language literature on cataloging and classification published during 2011 and 2012, covering both theory and application. A major theme of the literature centered on Resource Description and Access (RDA), as the period covered in this review includes the conclusion of the RDA test, revisions to RDA, and the implementation decision. Explorations in the theory and practical applications of the Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR), upon which RDA is organized, are also heavily represented. Library involvement with linked data through the creation of prototypes and vocabularies are explored further during the period. Other areas covered in the review include: classification, controlled vocabularies and name authority, evaluation and history of cataloging, special formats cataloging, cataloging and discovery services, non-AACR2/RDA metadata, cataloging workflows, and the education and careers of catalogers.

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.039460458 = product of:
  0.078920916 = sum of:
    0.078920916 = product of:
      0.15784183 = sum of:
        0.15784183 = weight(_text_:theory in 4115) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15784183 = score(doc=4115,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.7351069 = fieldWeight in 4115, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4115)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.039460458 = product of:
  0.078920916 = sum of:
    0.078920916 = product of:
      0.15784183 = sum of:
        0.15784183 = weight(_text_:theory in 701) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.15784183 = score(doc=701,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.7351069 = fieldWeight in 701, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=701)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.034878444 = product of:
  0.06975689 = sum of:
    0.06975689 = product of:
      0.13951378 = sum of:
        0.13951378 = weight(_text_:theory in 1442) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13951378 = score(doc=1442,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.6497488 = fieldWeight in 1442, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1442)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Introductory reading list covering most of the areas of modern classification theory. Includes definitions, bibliographic and nonbibliographic classification, recent views on classification, subjects related to classification, and miscellaneous background material such as scientific method, logic, statistical methods, etc.

0.0345279 = product of:
  0.0690558 = sum of:
    0.0690558 = product of:
      0.1381116 = sum of:
        0.1381116 = weight(_text_:theory in 1733) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.1381116 = score(doc=1733,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.6432185 = fieldWeight in 1733, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1733)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

0.034173757 = product of:
  0.06834751 = sum of:
    0.06834751 = product of:
      0.13669503 = sum of:
        0.13669503 = weight(_text_:theory in 724) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.13669503 = score(doc=724,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.63662124 = fieldWeight in 724, 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=724)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

An abridged version of the 1993 Gerd Muehsam Award paper. Discusses the problems of accessing art information and outlines the following features of the literature review: its form scope and intent. The review covers the following topics: Subject access theory and application; tools; projects and programmes; and technology and information theory

0.031123029 = product of:
  0.062246058 = sum of:
    0.062246058 = product of:
      0.124492116 = sum of:
        0.124492116 = weight(_text_:theory in 4244) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.124492116 = score(doc=4244,freq=26.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.57978934 = fieldWeight in 4244, product of:
              5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
                26.0 = termFreq=26.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4244)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Does information science have a theory of information? There seems to be a tendency within information science to seek a theory of information, but the search is apparently unproductive (Hjoerland, 1998; Saracevic, 1999). This review brings together work from inside and outside the field of information science, showing that other perspectives an information theory could be of assistance. Constructivist claims that emphasize the uniqueness of the individual experience of information, maintaining that there is no information independent of our social practices (Cornelius, 1996a), are also mentioned. Such a position would be echoed in a symbolic interactionist approach. Conventionally, the history of attempts to develop a theory of information date from the publication of Claude Shannon's work in 1948, and his joint publication of that work with an essay by Warren Weaver in 1949 (Shannon & Weaver, 1949/1963). Information science found itself alongside many other disciplines attempting to develop a theory of information (Machlup & Mansfield, 1983). From Weaver's essay stems the claim that the basic concepts of Shannon's mathematical theory of communication, which Shannon later referred to as a theory of information, can be applied in disciplines outside electrical engineering, even in the social sciences.
Shannon provides a model whereby an information source selects a desired message, out of a set of possible messages, that is then formed into a signal. The signal is sent over the communication channel to a receiver, which then transforms the signal back to a message that is relayed to its destination (Shannon & Weaver, 1949/1963, p. 7). Problems connected with this model have remained with us. Some of the concepts are ambiguous; the identification of information with a process has spancelled the debate; the problems of measuring the amount of information, the relation of information to meaning, and questions about the truth value of information have remained. Balancing attention between the process and the act of receiving information, and deterrnining the character of the receiver, has also been the focus of work and debate. Information science has mined work from other disciplines involving information theory and has also produced its own theory. The desire for theory remains (Hjorland, 1998; Saracevic, 1999), but what theory will deliver is unclear. The distinction between data and information, or communication and information, is not of concern here. The convention that data, at some point of use, become information, and that information is transferred in a process of communication suffices for this discussion. Substitution of any of these terms is not a problem. More problematic is the relationship between information and knowledge. It seems accepted that at some point the data by perception, or selection, become information, which feeds and alters knowledge structures in a human recipient. What that process of alteration is, and its implications, remain problematic. This review considers the following questions: 1. What can be gleaned from the history of reviews of information in information science? 2. What current maps, guides, and surveys are available to elaborate our understanding of the issues? 3. Is there a parallel development of work outside information science an information theory of use to us? 4. Is there a dominant view of information within information science? 5. What can we say about issues like measurement, meaning, and misinformation? 6. Is there other current work of relevance that can assist attempts, in information science, to develop a theory of information?

0.027983444 = product of:
  0.055966888 = sum of:
    0.055966888 = product of:
      0.111933775 = sum of:
        0.111933775 = weight(_text_:22 in 3281) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.111933775 = score(doc=3281,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18081778 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 3281, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3281)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 1.2012 13:01:26

0.027983444 = product of:
  0.055966888 = sum of:
    0.055966888 = product of:
      0.111933775 = sum of:
        0.111933775 = weight(_text_:22 in 3962) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.111933775 = score(doc=3962,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18081778 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 3962, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=3962)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

13. 7.2008 9:30:22

0.027983444 = product of:
  0.055966888 = sum of:
    0.055966888 = product of:
      0.111933775 = sum of:
        0.111933775 = weight(_text_:22 in 4368) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.111933775 = score(doc=4368,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18081778 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 4368, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=4368)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:22:28

0.027983444 = product of:
  0.055966888 = sum of:
    0.055966888 = product of:
      0.111933775 = sum of:
        0.111933775 = weight(_text_:22 in 6091) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.111933775 = score(doc=6091,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18081778 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 6091, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=6091)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

13. 7.2008 19:53:22

0.027983444 = product of:
  0.055966888 = sum of:
    0.055966888 = product of:
      0.111933775 = sum of:
        0.111933775 = weight(_text_:22 in 5341) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.111933775 = score(doc=5341,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18081778 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 5341, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=5341)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

17.10.1996 14:22:33

0.027983444 = product of:
  0.055966888 = sum of:
    0.055966888 = product of:
      0.111933775 = sum of:
        0.111933775 = weight(_text_:22 in 334) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.111933775 = score(doc=334,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18081778 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 334, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=334)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 22(1987), S.109-145

0.027983444 = product of:
  0.055966888 = sum of:
    0.055966888 = product of:
      0.111933775 = sum of:
        0.111933775 = weight(_text_:22 in 335) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.111933775 = score(doc=335,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18081778 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 335, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=335)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 22(1987), S.41-77

0.027983444 = product of:
  0.055966888 = sum of:
    0.055966888 = product of:
      0.111933775 = sum of:
        0.111933775 = weight(_text_:22 in 337) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.111933775 = score(doc=337,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18081778 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.61904186 = fieldWeight in 337, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.125 = fieldNorm(doc=337)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 22(1987), S.79-108

0.027902756 = product of:
  0.05580551 = sum of:
    0.05580551 = product of:
      0.11161102 = sum of:
        0.11161102 = weight(_text_:theory in 5142) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.11161102 = score(doc=5142,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.51979905 = fieldWeight in 5142, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5142)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Investigates current thinking on the theory and application of index language. Explains their links with on-line retrieval systems and the need to go beyond a narrow library application, identifying 2 regularly occurring points of view: transferring traditional ideas about conventional keyword catalogues to post-coordinate on-line searches and redundant terminology about input and its replacement by pure subject searching. Explores the general subject literature, the theory of verbal documentation languages, syntactical indexing, the thesaurus principle and faceted classification structure

0.024662787 = product of:
  0.049325574 = sum of:
    0.049325574 = product of:
      0.09865115 = sum of:
        0.09865115 = weight(_text_:theory in 3316) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.09865115 = score(doc=3316,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.4594418 = fieldWeight in 3316, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3316)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Selective review of english-language articles and books, published in 1989, on aspects of descriptive cataloguing including: theory, AACR, cataloguing manuals, nonbook cataloguing, authority control, shared cataloguing, retrospective conversion, management, expert systems, teaching, training and recruiting

0.024485514 = product of:
  0.048971027 = sum of:
    0.048971027 = product of:
      0.097942054 = sum of:
        0.097942054 = weight(_text_:22 in 1601) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.097942054 = score(doc=1601,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18081778 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 1601, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=1601)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

27.12.2014 18:54:22

0.022059066 = product of:
  0.044118132 = sum of:
    0.044118132 = product of:
      0.088236265 = sum of:
        0.088236265 = weight(_text_:theory in 1979) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.088236265 = score(doc=1979,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.41093725 = fieldWeight in 1979, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1979)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

As an informational technology, the World Wide Web has enjoyed spectacular success. In just ten years it has transformed the way information is produced, stored, and shared in arenas as diverse as shopping, family photo albums, and high-level academic research. The "Semantic Web" is touted by its developers as equally revolutionary, although it has not yet achieved anything like the Web's exponential uptake. It seeks to transcend a current limitation of the Web - that it largely requires indexing to be accomplished merely on specific character strings. Thus, a person searching for information about "turkey" (the bird) receives from current search engines many irrelevant pages about "Turkey" (the country) and nothing about the Spanish "pavo" even if he or she is a Spanish-speaker able to understand such pages. The Semantic Web vision is to develop technology to facilitate retrieval of information via meanings, not just spellings. For this to be possible, most commentators believe, Semantic Web applications will have to draw on some kind of shared, structured, machine-readable conceptual scheme. Thus, there has been a convergence between the Semantic Web research community and an older tradition with roots in classical Artificial Intelligence (AI) research (sometimes referred to as "knowledge representation") whose goal is to develop a formal ontology. A formal ontology is a machine-readable theory of the most fundamental concepts or "categories" required in order to understand information pertaining to any knowledge domain. A review of the attempts that have been made to realize this goal provides an opportunity to reflect in interestingly concrete ways on various research questions such as the following: - How explicit a machine-understandable theory of meaning is it possible or practical to construct? - How universal a machine-understandable theory of meaning is it possible or practical to construct? - How much (and what kind of) inference support is required to realize a machine-understandable theory of meaning? - What is it for a theory of meaning to be machine-understandable anyway?

0.021143936 = product of:
  0.04228787 = sum of:
    0.04228787 = product of:
      0.08457574 = sum of:
        0.08457574 = weight(_text_:theory in 4270) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08457574 = score(doc=4270,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.21471956 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.05163523 = queryNorm
            0.3938893 = fieldWeight in 4270, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4270)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

"Theory weary, theory leery, why can't I be theory cheery?" (Erickson, 2002, p. 269). The field of human-computer interaction (HCI) is rapidly expanding. Alongside the extensive technological developments that are taking place, a profusion of new theories, methods, and concerns has been imported into the field from a range of disciplines and contexts. An extensive critique of recent theoretical developments is presented here together with an overview of HCI practice. A consequence of bringing new theories into the field has been much insightful explication of HCI phenomena and also a broadening of the field's discourse. However, these theoretically based approaches have had limited impact an the practice of interaction design. This chapter discusses why this is so and suggests that different kinds of mechanisms are needed that will enable both designers and researchers to better articulate and theoretically ground the challenges facing them today. Human-computer interaction is bursting at the seams. Its mission, goals, and methods, well established in the '80s, have all greatly expanded to the point that "HCI is now effectively a boundless domain" (Barnard, May, Duke, & Duce, 2000, p. 221). Everything is in a state of flux: The theory driving research is changing, a flurry of new concepts is emerging, the domains and type of users being studied are diversifying, many of the ways of doing design are new, and much of what is being designed is significantly different. Although potentially much is to be gained from such rapid growth, the downside is an increasing lack of direction, structure, and coherence in the field. What was originally a bounded problem space with a clear focus and a small set of methods for designing computer systems that were easier and more efficient to use by a single user is now turning into a diffuse problem space with less clarity in terms of its objects of study, design foci, and investigative methods. Instead, aspirations of overcoming the Digital Divide, by providing universal accessibility, have become major concerns (e.g., Shneiderman, 2002a). The move toward greater openness in the field means that many more topics, areas, and approaches are now considered acceptable in the worlds of research and practice.
A problem with allowing a field to expand eclectically is that it can easily lose coherence. No one really knows what its purpose is anymore or what criteria to use in assessing its contribution and value to both knowledge and practice. For example, among the many new approaches, ideas, methods, and goals now being proposed, how do we know which are acceptable, reliable, useful, and generalizable? Moreover, how do researchers and designers know which of the many tools and techniques to use when doing design and research? To be able to address these concerns, a young field in a state of flux (as is HCI) needs to take stock and begin to reflect an the changes that are happening. The purpose of this chapter is to assess and reflect an the role of theory in contemporary HCI and the extent to which it is used in design practice. Over the last ten years, a range of new theories has been imported into the field. A key question is whether such attempts have been productive in terms of "knowledge transfer." Here knowledge transfer means the translation of research findings (e.g., theory, empirical results, descriptive accounts, cognitive models) from one discipline (e.g., cognitive psychology, sociology) into another (e.g., human-computer interaction, computer supported cooperative work).