Search (26 results, page 1 of 2)

0.016744237 = product of:
  0.10046542 = sum of:
    0.10046542 = weight(_text_:great in 2915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10046542 = score(doc=2915,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22838 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.43990463 = fieldWeight in 2915, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2915)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Content

Beitrag in einem Special issue: The Great Debate: "This House Believes that the Traditional Thesaurus has no Place in Modern Information Retrieval." [19 February 2015, 14:00-17:30 preceded by ISKO UK AGM and followed by networking, wine and nibbles; vgl.: http://www.iskouk.org/content/great-debate].

0.01657595 = product of:
  0.09945569 = sum of:
    0.09945569 = weight(_text_:great in 2973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09945569 = score(doc=2973,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.22838 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.43548337 = fieldWeight in 2973, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2973)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In spring 2002 I started teaching Knowledge Organization (KO) at the new master education at The Royal School of Library and Information Science in Copenhagen (MS RSLIS). I began collecting information about KO as support for my own teaching and research. In the beginning I made the information available to the student through a password protected system "SiteScape". This site was a great success, but I encountered problems in transferring the system for new classes the following years. Therefore I have now decided to make it public on the www and to protect only information that should not be made public. References freely available in electronic form are given an URL (if known).

0.01401699 = product of:
  0.08410194 = sum of:
    0.08410194 = weight(_text_:documentation in 4530) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08410194 = score(doc=4530,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1765992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.47623056 = fieldWeight in 4530, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4530)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This paper investigates the problem of the labelling of the library, documentation and information field with particular emphasis on the terms 'information' and 'document'. What influences introduced the concept of 'information' into the library field in the middle of the 20th century? What kind of theoretical orientation have dominated the field, and how are these orientations linked to epistemological assumptions? What is the implication of the recent influence of socially oriented epistemologies for such basic concepts in IS as 'information' and 'document'? The article explores these problems and advocates an approach with emphasis on documents and on the concept 'memory institution' as generic term for the central object of study

Source

Journal of documentation. 56(2000) no.1, S.27-41

0.012262313 = product of:
  0.07357387 = sum of:
    0.07357387 = weight(_text_:documentation in 1892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07357387 = score(doc=1892,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1765992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.41661498 = fieldWeight in 1892, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1892)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Purpose - To suggest that a theory of classification for information retrieval (IR), asked for by Spärck Jones in a 1970 paper, presupposes a full implementation of a pragmatic understanding. Part of the Journal of Documentation celebration, "60 years of the best in information research". Design/methodology/approach - Literature-based conceptual analysis, taking Sparck Jones as its starting-point. Analysis involves distinctions between "positivism" and "pragmatism" and "classical" versus Kuhnian understandings of concepts. Findings - Classification, both manual and automatic, for retrieval benefits from drawing upon a combination of qualitative and quantitative techniques, a consideration of theories of meaning, and the adding of top-down approaches to IR in which divisions of labour, domains, traditions, genres, document architectures etc. are included as analytical elements and in which specific IR algorithms are based on the examination of specific literatures. Introduces an example illustrating the consequences of a full implementation of a pragmatist understanding when handling homonyms. Practical implications - Outlines how to classify from a pragmatic-philosophical point of view. Originality/value - Provides, emphasizing a pragmatic understanding, insights of importance to classification for retrieval, both manual and automatic. - Vgl. auch: Szostak, R.: Classification, interdisciplinarity, and the study of science. In: Journal of documentation. 64(2008) no.3, S.319-332.

Source

Journal of documentation. 61(2005) no.5, S.582-597

0.012262313 = product of:
  0.07357387 = sum of:
    0.07357387 = weight(_text_:documentation in 4476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07357387 = score(doc=4476,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.1765992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.41661498 = fieldWeight in 4476, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4476)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Evidence-based practice (EBP) is an influential interdisciplinary movement that originated in medicine as evidence-based medicine (EBM) about 1992. EBP is of considerable interest to library and information science (LIS) because it focuses on a thorough documentation of the basis for the decision making that is established in research as well as an optimization of every link in documentation and search processes. EBP is based on the philosophical doctrine of empiricism and, therefore, it is subject to the criticism that has been raised against empiricism. The main criticism of EBP is that practitioners lose their autonomy, that the understanding of theory and of underlying mechanisms is weakened, and that the concept of evidence is too narrow in the empiricist tradition. In this article, it is suggested that we should speak of "research-based practice" rather than EBP, because this term is open to more fruitful epistemologies and provides a broader understanding of evidence. The focus on scientific argumentation in EBP is an important contribution from EBP to LIS, which is long overdue, but parts of the underlying epistemological assumptions should be replaced: EBP is too narrow, too formalist, and too mechanical an approach on which to base scientific and scholarly documentation.

0.012014562 = product of:
  0.07208737 = sum of:
    0.07208737 = weight(_text_:documentation in 4404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07208737 = score(doc=4404,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1765992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.4081976 = fieldWeight in 4404, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4404)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this article is to introduce the special issue of Journal of Documentation about library and information science (LIS) and the philosophy of science. Design/methodology/approach - The most important earlier collected works about metatheories and philosophies of science within LIS are listed. Findings - It is claimed that Sweden probably is the country in which philosophy of science has the highest priority in LIS education. The plan of the guest editor was that each epistemological position should be both introduced and interpreted in a LIS context together with a review of its influence within the field and an evaluation of the pros and cons of that position. This was only an ideal plan. It is argued that it is important that such knowledge and debate are available within the LIS-literature itself and that the answers to such questions as "What is positivism?" are not trivial ones. Originality/value - The introduction is written to assist readers overviewing the issue and share the thoughts of the editor in planning the issue.

Source

Journal of documentation. 61(2005) no.1, S.5-10

0.009911507 = product of:
  0.059469044 = sum of:
    0.059469044 = weight(_text_:documentation in 4723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059469044 = score(doc=4723,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1765992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.33674583 = fieldWeight in 4723, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4723)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Journal of documentation. 54(1998) no.5, S.606-621

0.009369321 = product of:
  0.028107964 = sum of:
    0.021238945 = weight(_text_:documentation in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021238945 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1765992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.12026637 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
    0.006869018 = product of:
      0.013738036 = sum of:
        0.013738036 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013738036 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14203148 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.040559217 = queryNorm
            0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Content

References Bates, M.J. (2005). Information and knowledge: An evolutionary framework for information science. Information Research, 10(4), paper 239. Available at http://InformationR.net/ir/10-4/paper239.html. Bates, M.J. (2006). Fundamental forms of information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), 1033-1045. Bates, M.J. (2008). Hjorland's critique of Bates' work on defining information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(5), 842-844. Hjoerland, B. (2000). Documents, memory institutions, and information science. Journal of Documentation, 56, 27-41. Hjoerland, B. (2007). Information: Objective or subjective-situational? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(10), 1448-1456. Karpatschof, B. (2000). Human activity. Contributions to the anthropological sciences from a perspective of activity theory. Copenhagen: Dansk Psykologisk Forlag. Retrieved May 14, 2007, from http://informationr.net/ir/ 12-3/Karpatschof/Karp00.html.

Date

22. 3.2009 18:13:27

0.008495579 = product of:
  0.050973468 = sum of:
    0.050973468 = weight(_text_:documentation in 2247) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050973468 = score(doc=2247,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1765992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.28863928 = fieldWeight in 2247, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2247)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Journal of documentation. 48(1992), S.172-200

0.008495579 = product of:
  0.050973468 = sum of:
    0.050973468 = weight(_text_:documentation in 4409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050973468 = score(doc=4409,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1765992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.28863928 = fieldWeight in 4409, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4409)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Journal of documentation. 61(2005) no.1, S.156-163

0.008495579 = product of:
  0.050973468 = sum of:
    0.050973468 = weight(_text_:documentation in 4464) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050973468 = score(doc=4464,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1765992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.28863928 = fieldWeight in 4464, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4464)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Journal of documentation. 58(2002) no.4, S.422-462

0.008495579 = product of:
  0.050973468 = sum of:
    0.050973468 = weight(_text_:documentation in 830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.050973468 = score(doc=830,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1765992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.28863928 = fieldWeight in 830, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=830)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Journal of documentation. 63(2007) no.3, S.359-377

0.008372119 = product of:
  0.05023271 = sum of:
    0.05023271 = weight(_text_:great in 3013) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05023271 = score(doc=3013,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22838 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.21995232 = fieldWeight in 3013, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.6307793 = idf(docFreq=430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=3013)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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.
Hanne Albrechtsen & Annelise Mark Pejtersen's: "Cognitive Work Analysis and Work Centered Design of Classification Schemes" is also based an empirical studies, but focuses an work groups rather than literatures. It claims that deep semantic structures relevant to classification evolve dynamically in work groups. Its empirical method is different from Zins & Guttmann's. Future research must further uncover the relative strengths and weaknesses of literatures versus people in the construction of knowledge organizing systems. Jenna Hartel's: "The Serious Leisure Frontier in Library and Information Science: Hobby Domains" expands DA to the field of "everyday information use" and demonstrates that most of the approaches suggested by Hjoerland (2002a) may also be relevant to this field. Finally, Birger Hjoerland & Jenna Hartel's After-word: Some Basic Issues Related to the Notion of a Domain" suggests that the notions of ontology, epistemology, and sociology may be three fundamental dimensions of domains and that these perspectives may clarify what domains are and the dynamics of their development. While this special issue marks great progress, and the zenith of DA to date, the approach remains emergent and there is still much work to be done. We see the need for ongoing domain analytic research along two paths. Remarkably, to our knowledge no domain has been thoroughly studied in the domain analytic view. The first order, then, is rigorous application of DA to multiple domains. Second, theoretical and methodological gaps presently exist; these are opportunities for creative inventors to contribute original extensions to the approach. We warmly invite all readers to seriously engage with these articles, whether as critics, spectators, or participants in the domain analytic project.

0.007079649 = product of:
  0.04247789 = sum of:
    0.04247789 = weight(_text_:documentation in 4415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04247789 = score(doc=4415,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1765992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.24053274 = fieldWeight in 4415, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4415)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Journal of documentation. 61(2005) no.1, S.130-155

0.007079649 = product of:
  0.04247789 = sum of:
    0.04247789 = weight(_text_:documentation in 4452) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04247789 = score(doc=4452,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1765992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.24053274 = fieldWeight in 4452, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4452)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Journal of documentation. 59(2003) no.3, S.278-320

0.007079649 = product of:
  0.04247789 = sum of:
    0.04247789 = weight(_text_:documentation in 388) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04247789 = score(doc=388,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1765992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.24053274 = fieldWeight in 388, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=388)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Journal of documentation. 68(2012) no.3, S.299-317

0.007079649 = product of:
  0.04247789 = sum of:
    0.04247789 = weight(_text_:documentation in 4626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04247789 = score(doc=4626,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1765992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.24053274 = fieldWeight in 4626, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4626)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Source

Journal of documentation. 75(2019) no.1, S.164-171

0.006007281 = product of:
  0.036043685 = sum of:
    0.036043685 = weight(_text_:documentation in 1265) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036043685 = score(doc=1265,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.1765992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.2040988 = fieldWeight in 1265, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1265)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

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).

0.0056637186 = product of:
  0.03398231 = sum of:
    0.03398231 = weight(_text_:documentation in 2290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03398231 = score(doc=2290,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1765992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.19242619 = fieldWeight in 2290, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2290)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This article is organized in 10 sections: (1) Knowledge Organization (KO) is a wide interdisciplinary field, muck broader than Library and Information Science (LIS). (2) Inside LIS there have been many different approaches and traditions of KO with little mutual influence. These traditions have to a large extent been defined by new technology, for which reason the theoretical integration and underpinning has not been well considered. The most important technology-driven traditions are: a) Manual indexing and classification in libraries and reference works, b) Documentation and scientific communication, c) Information storage and retrieval by computers, d) Citation based KO and e) Full text, hypertext and Internet based approaches. These traditions taken together define very muck the special LIS focus an KO. For KO as a field of research it is important to establish a fruitful theoretical frame of reference for this overall field. This paper provides some suggestions. (3) One important theoretical distinction to consider is the one between social and intellectual forms of KO. Social forms of KO are related to professional training, disciplines and social groups while intellectual organization is related to concepts and theories in the fields to be organized. (4) The social perspective includes in addition the systems of genres and documents as well as the social system of knowledge Producers, knowledge intermediaries and knowledge users. (5) This social system of documents, genres and agents makes available a very complicated structure of potential subject access points (SAPs), which may be used in information retrieval (IR). The basic alm of research in KO is to develop knowledge an how to optimise this system of SAPs and its utilization in IR. (6) SAPs may be seen as signs, and their production and use may be understood from a social semiotic point of view. (7) The concept of paradigms is also helpful because different groups and interests tend to be organized according to a paradigm and to develop different criteria of relevance, and thus different criteria of likeliness in KO. (8) The basic unit in KO is the semantic relation between two concepts, and such relations are embedded in theories. (9) In classification like things are grouped together, but what is considered similar is not a trivial question. (10) The paper concludes with the considering of methods for KO. Basically the methods of any field are connected with epistemological theories. This is also the case with KO. The existing methods as described in the literature of KO fit into a classification of basic epistemological views. The debate about the methods of KO at the deepest level therefore implies an epistemological discussion.

0.0042477893 = product of:
  0.025486734 = sum of:
    0.025486734 = weight(_text_:documentation in 5079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025486734 = score(doc=5079,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1765992 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.040559217 = queryNorm
        0.14431964 = fieldWeight in 5079, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.354108 = idf(docFreq=1544, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5079)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Discussions about the concept of information in other disciplines are very important for IS because many theories and approaches in IS have their origins elsewhere (see the section "Information as an Interdisciplinary Concept" in this chapter). The epistemological concept of information brings into play nonhuman information processes, particularly in physics and biology. And vice versa: the psychic and sociological processes of selection and interpretation may be considered using objective parameters, leaving aside the semantic dimension, or more precisely, by considering objective or situational parameters of interpretation. This concept can be illustrated also in physical terms with regard to release mechanisms, as we suggest. Our overview of the concept of information in the natural sciences as well as in the humanities and social sciences cannot hope to be comprehensive. In most cases, we can refer only to fragments of theories. However, the reader may wish to follow the leads provided in the bibliography. Readers interested primarily in information science may derive most benefit from the section an "Information in Information Science," in which we offer a detailed explanation of diverse views and theories of information within our field; supplementing the recent ARIST chapter by Cornelius (2002). We show that the introduction of the concept of information circa 1950 to the domain of special librarianship and documentation has in itself had serious consequences for the types of knowledge and theories developed in our field. The important question is not only what meaning we give the term in IS, but also how it relates to other basic terms, such as documents, texts, and knowledge. Starting with an objectivist view from the world of information theory and cybernetics, information science has turned to the phenomena of relevance and interpretation as basic aspects of the concept of information. This change is in no way a turn to a subjectivist theory, but an appraisal of different perspectives that may determine in a particular context what is being considered as informative, be it a "thing" (Buckland, 1991b) or a document. Different concepts of information within information science reflect tensions between a subjective and an objective approach. The concept of interpretation or selection may be considered to be the bridge between these two poles. It is important, however, to consider the different professions involved with the interpretation and selection of knowledge. The most important thing in IS (as in information policy) is to consider information as a constitutive forte in society and, thus, recognize the teleological nature of information systems and services (Braman, 1989).