Search (12 results, page 1 of 1)

0.07669772 = product of:
  0.23009317 = sum of:
    0.018646449 = product of:
      0.037292898 = sum of:
        0.037292898 = weight(_text_:theory in 4488) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037292898 = score(doc=4488,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16234003 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.2297209 = fieldWeight in 4488, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4488)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.21144672 = weight(_text_:graphic in 4488) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.21144672 = score(doc=4488,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.25850594 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.6217136 = idf(docFreq=159, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03903913 = queryNorm
        0.8179569 = fieldWeight in 4488, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          6.6217136 = idf(docFreq=159, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4488)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper seeks to report a project to investigate the degree of inter-indexer consistency in the assignment of controlled vocabulary topical subject index terms to identical graphical images by different indexers at the National Library of Wales (NLW). Design/methodology/approach - An experimental quantitative methodology was devised to investigate inter-indexer consistency. Additionally, the project investigated the relationship, if any, between indexing exhaustivity and consistency, and the relationship, if any, between indexing consistency/exhaustivity and broad category of graphic format. Findings - Inter-indexer consistency in the assignment of topical subject index terms to graphic materials at the NLW was found to be generally low and highly variable. Inter-indexer consistency fell within the range 10.8 per cent to 48.0 per cent. Indexing exhaustivity varied substantially from indexer to indexer, with a mean assignment of 3.8 terms by each indexer to each image, falling within the range 2.5 to 4.7 terms. The broad category of graphic format, whether photographic or non-photographic, was found to have little influence on either inter-indexer consistency or indexing exhaustivity. Indexing exhaustivity and inter-indexer consistency exhibited a tendency toward a direct, positive relationship. The findings are necessarily limited as this is a small-scale study within a single institution. Originality/value - Previous consistency studies have almost exclusively investigated the indexing of print materials, with very little research published for non-print media. With the literature also rich in discussion of the added complexities of subjectively representing the intellectual content of visual media, this study attempts to enrich existing knowledge on indexing consistency for graphic materials and to address a noticeable gap in information theory.

0.05882954 = product of:
  0.17648861 = sum of:
    0.016011827 = product of:
      0.032023653 = sum of:
        0.032023653 = weight(_text_:29 in 2670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032023653 = score(doc=2670,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13732746 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 2670, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2670)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.16047677 = weight(_text_:graphic in 2670) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.16047677 = score(doc=2670,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.25850594 = queryWeight, product of:
          6.6217136 = idf(docFreq=159, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03903913 = queryNorm
        0.62078565 = fieldWeight in 2670, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          6.6217136 = idf(docFreq=159, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2670)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

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

Date

29. 8.2004 19:07:01

Object

Thesaurus for Graphic Materials

0.012747843 = product of:
  0.03824353 = sum of:
    0.022375738 = product of:
      0.044751476 = sum of:
        0.044751476 = weight(_text_:theory in 1445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044751476 = score(doc=1445,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16234003 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.27566507 = fieldWeight in 1445, 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=1445)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.01586779 = product of:
      0.03173558 = sum of:
        0.03173558 = weight(_text_:22 in 1445) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03173558 = score(doc=1445,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1367084 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1445, 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=1445)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)

Abstract

Recent approaches to KO have explored the notion of intertextuality and considered ways in which such abstract concepts derived from literary theory might form the foundation for the design of novel and rich information retrieval systems. In this paper, the notion of intertextuality is examined, and its use by knowledge organization researchers explored. Gerard Genette's work in particular has been used with some success to map out the possibilities offered by applying the concept of intertextuality to the design of information retrieval systems. The paper will examine some KO systems which reveal the traces of intertextual poetics in their design, including the FRBR model which in its mapping of intertextuality, articulates some of Genette's categories while stopping short of actualising the more subjective and interpretative categories. The paper concludes with speculation about whether and how these categories might be accommodated in a Web 2.0 interactive digital bibliosphere.

Source

Knowledge organization in the 21st century: between historical patterns and future prospects. Proceedings of the Thirteenth International ISKO Conference 19-22 May 2014, Kraków, Poland. Ed.: Wieslaw Babik

0.0064593195 = product of:
  0.038755916 = sum of:
    0.038755916 = product of:
      0.07751183 = sum of:
        0.07751183 = weight(_text_:theory in 4720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07751183 = score(doc=4720,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.16234003 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.47746593 = fieldWeight in 4720, 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=4720)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This chapter considers fiction retrieval research and initiatives, providing an overview of some of the approaches that have been developed. In particular, it describes two recent approaches to fiction retrieval that have made use of theoretical concepts drawn from literary theory. Fiction is an interesting information domain because it includes documents that serve two purposes, which are reading for pleasure and scholarly study (Beghtol, 1994), but fiction retrieval has not always focused on both aspects. In the 19th century, the approach was to treat fiction from a knowledge perspective within general classification schemes. The Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), the Library of Congress Classification (LCC) and the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) contain classes for literature, with the main subdivision in each case being the language in which it is written. Further subdivision is possible based on literary form, historical period or the works of an individual author (Riesthuis, 1997).

Source

Innovations in information retrieval: perspectives for theory and practice. Eds.: A. Foster, u. P. Rafferty

0.00439501 = product of:
  0.02637006 = sum of:
    0.02637006 = product of:
      0.05274012 = sum of:
        0.05274012 = weight(_text_:theory in 3541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05274012 = score(doc=3541,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16234003 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.3248744 = fieldWeight in 3541, 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=3541)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Where the institutionalised study of literature goes, knowledge organisation (KO) approaches to fictional works tend to follow. At the level of generic labelling and categorisation, theoretical conventions of the professional literary critical world appear to be adopted by the information science world, for example in the generic categorisation undertaken by the British National Bibliography. This paper, which is concerned with the epistemological assumptions underpinning fiction categorisation, explores current genre theory and argues for an approach to the understanding of genre, and ultimately the description of genre, that is based on a cultural-materialist, historical world-view. In addition, a novel framework for a genre mapping KO tool is described. Fiction information retrieval is still a fairly underdeveloped area of information science. There have been some developments, mainly in the 1980s and 1990s, which focused on user warrant as the basis for developing retrieval systems (e.g. Pejtersen 1992) but there is still space for a generic approach which can identify and describe novels at a micro-level while situating them within a broader systems view. In the current information retrieval context, any such tool, which would be developed for web use, should incorporate both informational fields and affective dimension indexing in the form of user derived tagging.

0.0037292899 = product of:
  0.022375738 = sum of:
    0.022375738 = product of:
      0.044751476 = sum of:
        0.044751476 = weight(_text_:theory in 640) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044751476 = score(doc=640,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16234003 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.27566507 = fieldWeight in 640, 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=640)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This article explores the representation of knowledge through the discursive practice of 'general' or 'universal' classification schemes. These classification schemes were constructed within a philosophical framework which viewed `man' as the central focus in the universe, which believed in progress through science and research, and which privileged written documentation over other forms. All major classification schemes are built on clearly identifiable systems of knowledge, and all classification schemes, as discursive formations, regulate the ways in which knowledge is made accessible. Of particular interest in determining how knowledge is represented in classification schemes are the following: - Main classes: classification theorists have attempted to 'discipline epistemology' in the sense of imposing main class structures with the view to simplifying access to knowledge in documents for library users. - Notational language: a number of classification theorists were particularly interested in the establishment of symbolic languages through notation. The article considers these aspects of classification theory in relation to: the Dewey Decimal Classification scheme; Otlet and La Fontaine's Universal Bibliographic Classification and the International Institute of Bibliography; Henry Evelyn Bliss's Bibliographic Classification; and S.R. Ranganathan's Colon Classification.

0.0031077415 = product of:
  0.018646449 = sum of:
    0.018646449 = product of:
      0.037292898 = sum of:
        0.037292898 = weight(_text_:theory in 1792) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037292898 = score(doc=1792,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16234003 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.2297209 = fieldWeight in 1792, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1792)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of the research is to explore relationships between social tagging and key poststructuralist principles; to devise and construct an analytical framework through which key poststructuralist principles are converted into workable research questions and applied to analyse Librarything tags, and to assess the validity of performing such an analysis. The research hypothesis is that tagging represents an imperfect analogy for the poststructuralist project Design/methodology/approach Tags from LibraryThing and from a library OPAC were compared and constrasted with Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) and publishers' descriptions. Research questions derived from poststructuralism, asked whether tags destabilise meaning, whether and how far the death of the author is expressed in tags, and whether tags deconstruct LCSH. Findings Tags can temporarily destabilise meaning by obfuscating the structure of a word. Meaning is destabilised, perhaps only momentarily, and then it is recreated; it might resemble the original meaning, or it may not, however any attempt to make tags useful or functional necessarily imposes some form of structure. The analysis indicates that in tagging, the author, if not dead, is ignored. Authoritative interpretations are not pervasively mimicked in the tags. In relation to LCSH, tagging decentres the dominant view, but neither exposes nor judges it. Nor does tagging achieve the final stage of the deconstructive process, showing the dominant view to be a constructed reality. Originality/value This is one of very few studies to have attempted a critical theoretical approach to social tagging. It offers a novel methodological approach to undertaking analysis based on poststructuralist theory.

0.0031077415 = product of:
  0.018646449 = sum of:
    0.018646449 = product of:
      0.037292898 = sum of:
        0.037292898 = weight(_text_:theory in 5533) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037292898 = score(doc=5533,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16234003 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.2297209 = fieldWeight in 5533, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5533)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

Following from approaches that view information as documentary forms of specific communicative practices, this paper uses theoretical concepts derived from cultural theory to examine the concept of work in Functional Requirements for Bibliographic Records (FRBR) in relation to authorship, the ur-text, and intertextuality. Historically, the practice of librarianship has existed on a foundation of standards, and among the earliest of the standards is the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules (AACR). The basis of this set of standards is materialist: the object of scrutiny is the document, and the document, whatever its specific form, is considered to possess materiality. This paper argues that unlike the AACR, FRBR lays bare its own ideological underpinnings, and in so doing, it dematerializes the text and mystifies the creative process. At the same time, it has really been with the development of FRBR and linked-data models that library and information science has considered intertextual analysis at the level of the document rather than at a more abstract level. The idealism that underpins FRBR's notion of work points to intertextuality, with all its potential for rich analysis, but at the same time embeds deep in its system the logocentrism of the ideal signified-another example of disciplining epistemology. The paper will examine these two interlinked themes through discussion of FRBR and the strange case of the vanishing text, the ur-text, and intertextuality.

0.0031077415 = product of:
  0.018646449 = sum of:
    0.018646449 = product of:
      0.037292898 = sum of:
        0.037292898 = weight(_text_:theory in 1093) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037292898 = score(doc=1093,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16234003 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.2297209 = fieldWeight in 1093, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.1583924 = idf(docFreq=1878, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1093)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This article examines genre as knowledge organization. Genres are fluid and historically changing categories, and there are different views about the scope and membership of specific genres. The literature generally agrees that genre is a matter of discrimination and taxonomy, and that it is concerned with organising things into recognisable classes, existing as part of the relationship between texts and readers. Genre can be thought of as a sorting mechanism, and genres are not only a matter of codes and conventions but also call into play systems of use and social institutions. This article explores the history of genre analysis across a broad range of disciplines, including literary studies, rhetorical and social action studies, and English for academic and professional purposes. It considers genre theory as a framework for librarianship and knowledge organization and explores the use of genre within librarianship and knowledge organization. Finally, the article discusses the Library of Congress Genre/Forms Terms for Library and Archival Materials which, itself an evolving and changing standard, offers a step towards standardisation regarding genre terms and the scope of genre categories.

0.0029049278 = product of:
  0.017429566 = sum of:
    0.017429566 = product of:
      0.034859132 = sum of:
        0.034859132 = weight(_text_:methods in 2347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034859132 = score(doc=2347,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.22209854 = fieldWeight in 2347, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2347)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

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

0.0029049278 = product of:
  0.017429566 = sum of:
    0.017429566 = product of:
      0.034859132 = sum of:
        0.034859132 = weight(_text_:methods in 5313) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034859132 = score(doc=5313,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15695344 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.22209854 = fieldWeight in 5313, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.0204134 = idf(docFreq=2156, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5313)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

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

0.0022238651 = product of:
  0.01334319 = sum of:
    0.01334319 = product of:
      0.02668638 = sum of:
        0.02668638 = weight(_text_:29 in 3941) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02668638 = score(doc=3941,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13732746 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03903913 = queryNorm
            0.19432661 = fieldWeight in 3941, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3941)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

29. 8.2010 12:23:57