Search (8 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0062964396 = product of:
  0.025185758 = sum of:
    0.025185758 = product of:
      0.050371516 = sum of:
        0.050371516 = weight(_text_:design in 5166) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.050371516 = score(doc=5166,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17322445 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046071928 = queryNorm
            0.29078758 = fieldWeight in 5166, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5166)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Knowledge organization systems have been studied in several fields and for different and complementary aspects. Among the aspects that concentrate common interests, in this article we highlight those related to the terminological and conceptual relationships among the components of any knowledge organization system. This research aims to contribute to the critical analysis of knowledge organization systems, especially ontologies, thesauri, and classification systems, by the comprehension of its similarities and differences when dealing with concepts and their ways of relating to each other as well as to the conceptual design that is adopted.

0.0053969487 = product of:
  0.021587795 = sum of:
    0.021587795 = product of:
      0.04317559 = sum of:
        0.04317559 = weight(_text_:design in 1158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04317559 = score(doc=1158,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17322445 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046071928 = queryNorm
            0.24924651 = fieldWeight in 1158, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1158)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Acknowledging the importance of classification not only for library and information science but also for the study and mapping of the world phenomena, in this paper we revisit and systematize the main types of classifications and focus on the species of classification mainly drawing on the work of S. R. Ranganathan. We trace the evolution of library classification systems by their structures and modes of design of various shades of classification systems and make a comparative study of enumerative and faceted species of library classifications. The value of this paper is to have a picture of the whole spectrum of existing classifications, which may serve for the study of future developments and constructions of new systems. This paper updates previous works by Comaromi and Ranganathan and is also theoretically inspired by them.

0.0046815826 = product of:
  0.01872633 = sum of:
    0.01872633 = product of:
      0.03745266 = sum of:
        0.03745266 = weight(_text_:22 in 1409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03745266 = score(doc=1409,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16133605 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046071928 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1409, 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=1409)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.0046815826 = product of:
  0.01872633 = sum of:
    0.01872633 = product of:
      0.03745266 = sum of:
        0.03745266 = weight(_text_:22 in 2358) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03745266 = score(doc=2358,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16133605 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046071928 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2358, 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=2358)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

17. 2.2018 16:50:22

0.0044974573 = product of:
  0.01798983 = sum of:
    0.01798983 = product of:
      0.03597966 = sum of:
        0.03597966 = weight(_text_:design in 5457) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03597966 = score(doc=5457,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17322445 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046071928 = queryNorm
            0.20770542 = fieldWeight in 5457, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5457)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to discuss the literature on concept theory in library and information science (LIS) from an epistemological perspective, ascribing each paper to an epistemological family and discussing their relevance in the context of the knowledge organization (KO) domain. Design/methodology/approach This paper adopts a hermeneutic approach for the analysis of the texts that compose the corpus of study following contingency and categorical analyses. More specifically, the paper works with Bardin's contingency analysis and follows Hjørland's families of epistemologies for the categorization. Findings The analysis corroborates the observations made for the last ten years about the scarcity of studies on concept theory in LIS and KO. However, the study also reveals an epistemological turn on concept theory since 2009 that could be considered a departure from the rationalist views that dominated the field and a continuation of a broader paradigm shift in LIS and KO. All analyzed papers except two follow pragmatist or historicist approaches. Originality/value This paper follows-up and systematizes the contributions to the LIS and KO fields on concept theory mainly during the last decade. The epistemological analysis reveals the dominant views in this paradigm shift and the main authors and trends that are present in the LIS literature on concept theory.

0.003901319 = product of:
  0.015605276 = sum of:
    0.015605276 = product of:
      0.031210553 = sum of:
        0.031210553 = weight(_text_:22 in 1410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031210553 = score(doc=1410,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16133605 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046071928 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1410, 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=1410)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.0035979657 = product of:
  0.014391863 = sum of:
    0.014391863 = product of:
      0.028783726 = sum of:
        0.028783726 = weight(_text_:design in 2321) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028783726 = score(doc=2321,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17322445 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046071928 = queryNorm
            0.16616434 = fieldWeight in 2321, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2321)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to discuss and shed light on the following questions: What is an author? Is it a person who writes? Or, is it, in information, an iconic taxonomic designation (some might say a "classification") for a group of writings that are recognized by the public in some particular way? What does it mean when a search engine, or catalog, asks a user to enter the name of an author? And how does that accord with the manner in which the data have been entered in association with the names of the entities identified with the concept of authorship? Design/methodology/approach - The authors use several cases as bases of phenomenological discourse analysis, combining as best the authors can components of eidetic bracketing (a Husserlian technique for isolating noetic reduction) with Foucauldian discourse analysis. The two approaches are not sympathetic or together cogent, so the authors present them instead as alternative explanations alongside empirical evidence. In this way the authors are able to isolate components of iconic "authorship" and then subsequently engage them in discourse. Findings - An "author" is an iconic name associated with a class of works. An "author" is a role in public discourse between a set of works and the culture that consumes them. An "author" is a role in cultural sublimation, or a power broker in deabstemiation. An "author" is last, if ever, a person responsible for the intellectual content of a published work. The library catalog's attribution of "author" is at odds with the Foucauldian discursive comprehension of the role of an "author." Originality/value - One of the main assets of this paper is the combination of Foucauldian discourse analysis with phenomenological analysis for the study of the "author." The authors turned to Foucauldian discourse analysis to discover the loci of power in the interactions of the public with the named authorial entities. The authors also looked to phenomenological analysis to consider the lived experience of users who encounter the same named authorial entities. The study of the "author" in this combined way facilitated the revelation of new aspects of the role of authorship in search engines and library catalogs.

0.0035979657 = product of:
  0.014391863 = sum of:
    0.014391863 = product of:
      0.028783726 = sum of:
        0.028783726 = weight(_text_:design in 3944) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.028783726 = score(doc=3944,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17322445 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046071928 = queryNorm
            0.16616434 = fieldWeight in 3944, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.7598698 = idf(docFreq=2798, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3944)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to update and review the concept of warrant in Library and Information Science (LIS) and to introduce the concept of epistemic warrant from philosophy. Epistemic warrant can be used to assess the content of a work; and therefore, it can be a complement to existing warrants, such as literary warrant, in the development of controlled vocabularies. In this proposal, the authors aim to activate a theoretical discussion on warrant in order to revise and improve the validity of the concept of warrant from the user and classifier context to the classificationist context. Design/methodology/approach The authors have conducted an extensive literary review and close reading of the concept of warrant in LIS and knowledge organization in order to detect the different stances and gaps in which the concept of epistemic warrant might apply. The authors adopted an epistemological approach, in the vein of some of the previous commenters on warrant, such as Hope Olson and Birger Hjørland, and built upon the theoretical framework of different authors working with the concept of warrant outside knowledge organization, such as Alvin Plantinga and Alvin Goldman. Findings There are some authors and critics in the literature that have voiced for a more epistemological approach to warrant (in opposition to a predominantly ontological approach). In this sense, epistemic warrant would be an epistemological warrant and also a step forward toward pragmatism in a prominently empiricist context such as the justification of the inclusion of terms in a controlled vocabulary. Epistemic warrant can be used to complement literary warrant in the development of controlled vocabularies as well as in the classification of works. Originality/value This paper presents an exhaustive update and revision of the concept of warrant, analyzing, systematizing, and reviewing the different warrants discussed in the LIS literary warrant in a critical way. The concept of epistemic warrant for categorizational activities is introduced to the LIS field for the first time. This paper, and the proposal of epistemic warrant, has the potential to contribute to the theoretical and practical discussions on the development of controlled vocabularies and assessment of the content of works.