Search (34 results, page 1 of 2)

0.028264118 = product of:
  0.11305647 = sum of:
    0.11305647 = sum of:
      0.031329483 = weight(_text_:systems in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.031329483 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04289195 = queryNorm
          0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
      0.041048124 = weight(_text_:29 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.041048124 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15088047 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04289195 = 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)
      0.040678866 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.040678866 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04289195 = 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

0.012302123 = product of:
  0.049208492 = sum of:
    0.049208492 = product of:
      0.07381274 = sum of:
        0.044756405 = weight(_text_:systems in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044756405 = score(doc=629,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.339541 = fieldWeight in 629, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=629)
        0.029056335 = weight(_text_:22 in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029056335 = score(doc=629,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 629, 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=629)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

In the 1970s and 1980s, forms of user-based and cognitive approaches to knowledge organization came to the forefront as part of the overall development in library and information science and in the broader society. The specific nature of user-based approaches is their basis in the empirical studies of users or the principle that users need to be involved in the construction of knowledge organization systems. It might seem obvious that user-friendly systems should be designed on user studies or user involvement, but extremely successful systems such as Apple's iPhone, Dialog's search system and Google's PageRank are not based on the empirical studies of users. In knowledge organization, the Book House System is one example of a system based on user studies. In cognitive science the important WordNet database is claimed to be based on psychological research. This article considers such examples. The role of the user is often confused with the role of subjectivity. Knowledge organization systems cannot be objective and must therefore, by implication, be based on some kind of subjectivity. This subjectivity should, however, be derived from collective views in discourse communities rather than be derived from studies of individuals or from the study ofabstract minds.

Date

22. 2.2013 11:49:13

0.008572424 = product of:
  0.034289695 = sum of:
    0.034289695 = product of:
      0.05143454 = sum of:
        0.022378203 = weight(_text_:systems in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022378203 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 1398, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1398)
        0.029056335 = weight(_text_:22 in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029056335 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1398, 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=1398)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper considers classical bibliographic databases based on the Boolean retrieval model (for example MEDLINE and PsycInfo). This model is challenged by modern search engines and information retrieval (IR) researchers, who often consider Boolean retrieval as a less efficient approach. This speech examines this claim and argues for the continued value of Boolean systems, which implies two further issues: (1) the important role of human expertise in searching (expert searchers and "information literacy") and (2) the role of knowledge organization (KO) in the design and use of classical databases, including controlled vocabularies and human indexing. An underlying issue is the kind of retrieval system for which one should aim. It is suggested that Julian Warner's (2010) differentiation between the computer science traditions, aiming at automatically transforming queries into (ranked) sets of relevant documents, and an older library-orientated tradition aiming at increasing the "selection power" of users seems important. The Boolean retrieval model is important in order to provide users with the power to make informed searches and have full control over what is found and what is not found. These issues may also have important implications for the maintenance of information science and KO as research fields as well as for the information profession as a profession in its own right.

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

0.004286212 = product of:
  0.017144848 = sum of:
    0.017144848 = product of:
      0.02571727 = sum of:
        0.011189101 = weight(_text_:systems in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011189101 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.08488525 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
        0.014528167 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014528167 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = 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)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Content

Bates (2008, p. 843) further writes about her definition of information: "This is the objectivist foundation, the rock bottom minimum of the meaning of information; it informs both articles throughout." This is exactly the focus of my disagreement. If we take a word in a language, it is understood as both being a "pattern of organization of matter and energy" (e.g., a sound) and carrying meaning. But the relation between the physical sign and its meaning is considered an arbitrary relation in linguistics. Any physical material has the potential of carrying any meaning and to inform somebody. The physical stuff in itself is not information until it is used as a sign. An important issue in this debate is whether Bates' examples demonstrate the usefulness of her own position as opposed to mine. Her example about information seeking concerning navigation and how "the very layout of the ship and the design of the bridge promoted the smooth flow of information from the exterior of the ship to the crew and among the crewmembers" (Bates, 2006, pp. 1042-1043) does not justify Bates' definition of information as an objective phenomenon. The design is made for a purpose, and this purpose determines how information should be defined in this context. Bates' view on "curatorial sciences" (2006, p. 1043) is close to Hjorland's suggestions (2000) about "memory institutions," which is based on the subjective understanding of information. However, she does not relate to this proposal, and she does not argue how the objective understanding of information is related to this example. I therefore conclude that Bates' practical examples do not support her objective definition of information, nor do they support her "having it both ways." Finally, I exemplify the consequences of my understanding of information by showing how an archaeologist and a geologist might represent the same stone differently in information systems. Bates (2008, p. 843) writes about this example: "This position is completely consistent with mine." However, this "consistency" was not recognized by Bates until I published my objections and, therefore, this is an indication that my criticism was needed. I certainly share Professor Bates (2008) advice to read her original articles: They contain much important stuff. I just recommend that the reader ignore the parts that argue about information being an objective phenomenon."

Date

22. 3.2009 18:13:27

0.004169932 = product of:
  0.016679728 = sum of:
    0.016679728 = product of:
      0.050039183 = sum of:
        0.050039183 = weight(_text_:systems in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050039183 = score(doc=3461,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.37961838 = fieldWeight in 3461, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, 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.

0.0039093453 = product of:
  0.015637381 = sum of:
    0.015637381 = product of:
      0.04691214 = sum of:
        0.04691214 = weight(_text_:29 in 3852) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04691214 = score(doc=3852,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15088047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

29. 9.2017 19:09:20

0.003420677 = product of:
  0.013682708 = sum of:
    0.013682708 = product of:
      0.041048124 = sum of:
        0.041048124 = weight(_text_:29 in 6032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041048124 = score(doc=6032,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15088047 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = 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)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

29. 9.2001 14:03:14

0.0033899057 = product of:
  0.013559623 = sum of:
    0.013559623 = product of:
      0.040678866 = sum of:
        0.040678866 = weight(_text_:22 in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040678866 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5237, 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=5237)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

21. 7.2006 14:11:22

0.0032300155 = product of:
  0.012920062 = sum of:
    0.012920062 = product of:
      0.038760185 = sum of:
        0.038760185 = weight(_text_:systems in 2720) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.038760185 = score(doc=2720,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.29405114 = fieldWeight in 2720, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2720)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

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

0.0031647556 = product of:
  0.012659023 = sum of:
    0.012659023 = product of:
      0.037977066 = sum of:
        0.037977066 = weight(_text_:systems in 4409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037977066 = score(doc=4409,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.28811008 = fieldWeight in 4409, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4409)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this afterword is to examine which questions have been illuminated in the present issue and which theoretical problems still need to be addressed. Design/methodology/approach - Examines articles in this issue. Findings - Many epistemological views, e.g. social constructivism, critical theory, feminist epistemology, postmodernism and systems theory, need to be considered more deeply within library and information science (LIS). For some of the other epistemologies such as phenomenology and (post)structuralism there is still a need for deeper explorations of their potential contributions. Finally eclecticism is discussed as one way of coping with different theories in a field. Originality/value - The value of this afterword is to contribute to future reflections and debates concerning the philosophical basis of LIS and the specific contributions of specific systems of thought.

0.0031647556 = product of:
  0.012659023 = sum of:
    0.012659023 = product of:
      0.037977066 = sum of:
        0.037977066 = weight(_text_:systems in 3512) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037977066 = score(doc=3512,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.28811008 = fieldWeight in 3512, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, 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.

Source

Paradigms and conceptual systems in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Eleventh International ISKO Conference, 23-26 February 2010 Rome, Italy. Edited by Claudio Gnoli and Fulvio Mazzocchi

0.0031647556 = product of:
  0.012659023 = sum of:
    0.012659023 = product of:
      0.037977066 = sum of:
        0.037977066 = weight(_text_:systems in 2193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037977066 = score(doc=2193,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.28811008 = fieldWeight in 2193, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, 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.

0.0029056333 = product of:
  0.011622533 = sum of:
    0.011622533 = product of:
      0.0348676 = sum of:
        0.0348676 = weight(_text_:22 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0348676 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4359, 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=4359)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

17. 3.2011 19:22:55

0.0026372964 = product of:
  0.010549186 = sum of:
    0.010549186 = product of:
      0.031647556 = sum of:
        0.031647556 = weight(_text_:systems in 3023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031647556 = score(doc=3023,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 3023, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3023)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Relationships between Knowledge Organization in LIS and Scientific & Scholarly Classifications In her paper "Classification for Information Retrieval and Classification for Knowledge Discovery: Relationships between 'Professional' and 'Naive' Classifications" (KO v30, no.2, 2003), Beghtol outlines how Scholarly activities and research lead to classification systems which subsequently are disseminated in publications which are classified in information retrieval systems, retrieved by the users and again used in Scholarly activities and so on. We think this model is correct and that its point is important. What we are reacting to is the fact that Beghtol describes the Classifications developed by scholars as "naive" while she describes the Classifications developed by librarians and information scientists as "professional." We fear that this unfortunate terminology is rooted in deeply ar chored misjudgments about the relationships between scientific and Scholarly classification an the one side and LIS Classifications an the other. Only a correction of this misjudgment may give us in the field of knowledge organization a Chance to do a job that is not totally disrespected and disregarded by the rest of the intellectual world.

0.0026372964 = product of:
  0.010549186 = sum of:
    0.010549186 = product of:
      0.031647556 = sum of:
        0.031647556 = weight(_text_:systems in 2033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031647556 = score(doc=2033,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.24009174 = fieldWeight in 2033, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2033)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Much of the literature of information science and knowledge organization has accepted and built upon Elaine Svenonius's (2004) claim that "paradigmatic relationships are those that are context-free, definitional, and true in all possible worlds" (p. 583). At the same time, the literature demonstrates a common understanding that paradigmatic relations are the kinds of semantic relations used in thesauri and other knowledge organization systems (including equivalence relations, hierarchical relations, and associative relations). This understanding is problematic and harmful because it directs attention away from the empirical and contextual basis for knowledge-organizing systems. Whether A is a kind of X is certainly not context-free and definitional in empirical sciences or in much everyday information. Semantic relations are theory-dependent and, in biology, for example, a scientific revolution has taken place in which many relations have changed following the new taxonomic paradigm named "cladism." This biological example is not an exception, but the norm. Semantic relations including paradigmatic relations are not a priori but are dependent on subject knowledge, scientific findings, and paradigms. As long as information scientists and knowledge organizers isolate themselves from subject knowledge, knowledge organization cannot possibly progress.

0.0026107903 = product of:
  0.010443161 = sum of:
    0.010443161 = product of:
      0.031329483 = sum of:
        0.031329483 = weight(_text_:systems in 8297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031329483 = score(doc=8297,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 8297, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=8297)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Report on the conference on Information Authority and user knowledge held in Boras Apr 93 and arranged by Gothenburg University's Centre for Library and Information Science and Studies and Boras Library High School. The main speaker, Patrick Wilson, spoke on consequences of information overload and rapid conceptual change. Johan Olaisen's talk on 'toward a theory of clarified subjectivity' started like Wilson's with the problem that users of information systems drown in trivialities. Lena Olsson's dealt with library work in practice and commented on the connection between cognitive authority and professional status of librarians. Discussions centered on the definition of information authority, and on overload as the driving force in IF development

0.0026107903 = product of:
  0.010443161 = sum of:
    0.010443161 = product of:
      0.031329483 = sum of:
        0.031329483 = weight(_text_:systems in 4723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031329483 = score(doc=4723,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.23767869 = fieldWeight in 4723, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4723)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Epistemological theories of information science have a fundamental impact on theories about users, their cognition and information seeking behaviour, on subject analysis, and on classification. They also have a fundamental impact on information retrieval, on the understanding of 'information', on the view of documents and their role in communication, on information selection, on theories about the functions of information systems and on the role of information professionals. Asserts that information science must be based on epistemological knowledge, which avoids blind alleys and is not outdated. Shows limitations in the dominant approaches to information science and proposes alternative viewpoints

0.0024213614 = product of:
  0.009685446 = sum of:
    0.009685446 = product of:
      0.029056335 = sum of:
        0.029056335 = weight(_text_:22 in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029056335 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15020029 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

18.11.2023 13:47:22

0.0022378203 = product of:
  0.008951281 = sum of:
    0.008951281 = product of:
      0.026853843 = sum of:
        0.026853843 = weight(_text_:systems in 2131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026853843 = score(doc=2131,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 2131, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2131)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Knowledge Organization (KO) is about activities such as document description, indexing and classification performed in libraries, databases, archives etc. These activities are done by librarians, archivists, subject specialists as well as by computer algorithms. KO as a field of study is concerned with the nature and quality of such knowledge organizing processes (KOP) as well as the knowledge organizing systems (KOS) used to organize documents, document representations and concepts. There exist different historical and theoretical approaches to and theories about KO, which are related to different views of knowledge, cognition, language, and social organization. Each of these approaches tends to answer the question: "What is knowledge organization?" differently. LIS professionals have often concentrated on applying new technology and standards, and may not have seen their work as involving interpretation and analysis of meaning. That is why library classification has been criticized for a lack of substantive intellectual content. Traditional human-based activities are increasingly challenged by computer-based retrieval techniques. It is appropriate to investigate the relative contributions of different approaches; the current challenges make it imperative to reconsider this understanding. This paper offers an understanding of KO based on an explicit theory of knowledge.

0.0022378203 = product of:
  0.008951281 = sum of:
    0.008951281 = product of:
      0.026853843 = sum of:
        0.026853843 = weight(_text_:systems in 206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026853843 = score(doc=206,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13181444 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04289195 = queryNorm
            0.2037246 = fieldWeight in 206, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=206)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Information retrieval (IR) is about making systems for finding documents or information. Knowledge organization (KO) is the field concerned with indexing, classification, and representing documents for IR, browsing, and related processes, whether performed by humans or computers. The field of IR is today dominated by search engines like Google. An important difference between KO and IR as research fields is that KO attempts to reflect knowledge as depicted by contemporary scholarship, in contrast to IR, which is based on, for example, "match" techniques, popularity measures or personalization principles. The classification of documents in KO mostly aims at reflecting the classification of knowledge in the sciences. Books about birds, for example, mostly reflect (or aim at reflecting) how birds are classified in ornithology. KO therefore requires access to the adequate subject knowledge; however, this is often characterized by disagreements. At the deepest layer, such disagreements are based on philosophical issues best characterized as "paradigms". No IR technology and no system of knowledge organization can ever be neutral in relation to paradigmatic conflicts, and therefore such philosophical problems represent the basis for the study of IR and KO.