Search (49 results, page 1 of 3)

  • × author_ss:"Smiraglia, R.P."
  1. Smiraglia, R.P.: ¬The "works" phenomenon and best selling books (2007) 0.06 
    0.06483132 = product of:
  0.12966263 = sum of:
    0.065025695 = weight(_text_:wide in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.065025695 = score(doc=260,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18785246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.34615302 = fieldWeight in 260, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=260)
    0.043206044 = weight(_text_:web in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043206044 = score(doc=260,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 260, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=260)
    0.02143089 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02143089 = score(doc=260,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12824841 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 260, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=260)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)
    Abstract
    Studying works allows us to see empirically the problem of instantiation of works, both at large and in the catalog. The linkage of relationships among works is a critical goal for information retrieval because the ability to comprehend and select a specific instantiation of a work is crucial for the advancement of scholarship. Hence, the present study examines the instantiation of works among a set of entities known to be popular-best selling books of the 20th century. A sample of best selling works (fiction and non-fiction) from 1900-1999 was constructed. For each work in the sample, all bibliographic records were identified in both OCLC and RLIN as well as instantiations on the World Wide Web. All but one work in the sample exists in multiple instantiations; many have large networks; and complex networks of instantiations have begun to appear in full text on the Web. The results of this study demonstrate the importance of continuing to gather statistical data about works. Solutions devised for the catalog will need to be modified for use in the chaotic environment of the World Wide Web and its successors.
  2. Smiraglia, R.P.; Lee, H.-L.: Rethinking the authorship principle (2012) 0.02 
    0.022496447 = product of:
  0.06748934 = sum of:
    0.025717068 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025717068 = score(doc=5575,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12824841 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 5575, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5575)
    0.04177227 = product of:
      0.0626584 = sum of:
        0.027880006 = weight(_text_:system in 5575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027880006 = score(doc=5575,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13353272 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042397358 = queryNorm
            0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 5575, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5575)
        0.034778394 = weight(_text_:29 in 5575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034778394 = score(doc=5575,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14914064 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042397358 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 5575, 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=5575)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    The fundamental principle of order in the library catalogue is the authorship principle, which serves as the organizing node of an alphabetico-classed system, in which "texts" of "works" are organized first alphabetically by uniform title of the progenitor work and then are subarranged using titles for variant instantiations, under the heading for an "author." We analyze case studies of entries from (1) the first documented imperial library catalogue, the Seven Epitomes (Qilue [??]), in China; (2) Abelard's Works, which featured prominently in the 1848 testimony of Antonio Panizzi; and (3) The French Chef and the large family of instantiated works associated with it. Our analysis shows that the catalogue typically contains many large superwork sets. A more pragmatic approach to the design of catalogues is to array descriptions of resources in relation to the superwork sets to which they might belong. In all cases, a multidimensional faceted arrangement incorporating ideational nodes from the universe of recorded knowledge holds promise for greatly enhanced retrieval capability.
    Date
    10.12.2019 19:29:36
  3. Smiraglia, R.P.: On sameness and difference : an editorial (2008) 0.02 
    0.02025308 = product of:
  0.04050616 = sum of:
    0.01247251 = weight(_text_:web in 1919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01247251 = score(doc=1919,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.09014259 = fieldWeight in 1919, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1919)
    0.010715445 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010715445 = score(doc=1919,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12824841 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.08355226 = fieldWeight in 1919, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1919)
    0.017318208 = product of:
      0.02597731 = sum of:
        0.011616669 = weight(_text_:system in 1919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011616669 = score(doc=1919,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13353272 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042397358 = queryNorm
            0.08699492 = fieldWeight in 1919, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1919)
        0.014360641 = weight(_text_:22 in 1919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014360641 = score(doc=1919,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14846832 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042397358 = queryNorm
            0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 1919, 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=1919)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.5 = coord(3/6)
    Content
    2. Collocation versus disambiguation Of course, the practical reality is that systems must accommodate dual purposes when they declare entities to be the same or different. We wish at once to collocate or draw together everything that is alike, and at the same time to disambiguate the collocated set. So, the tension between the two purposes holds every system in balance. A set of collocated entities is thought to contain entities that are the same to some degree, but different enough to require an approach to sorting the elements of the set. It reminds me again of Wilson, who said of relevance that sometimes people just want something that serves as a means to some end. What does that suggest about sameness and difference? Perhaps that "more or less the same" or "a little bit different" reveals a sort of fuzzy-set, which opens the brackets around the set of equivalent entities that have been collocated. If so, then it means all the more that the differences, no matter how slight, need to be accounted for in the disambiguation. Of course there is quite a lot of overlap among domains, especially among closely related domains. We can see that in the articles in the present issue of this journal. We have papers that have come from at least three domains, and yet they all treat of knowledge and its conceptual ordering. Yet there is little conformity among the works cited by these four papers. What does that tell us? Perhaps that different domains are a little bit the same?
    3. A New Perspective: Theme and Variations In musicology there is a factual reality that every sound you hear can be reduced to a sort of calculus that expresses its tonal and metrical relationships. Schenkerian analysis (Forte and Gilbert 1982) is one approach to this. In the end it reveals a singular truth, which is that music (like information) is essentially an ordered accretion of energy. The beauty of this type of analysis is what it reveals when large quantities of music are analyzed-it reveals sets of similarities that might never have been noticed otherwise. The music information retrieval domain has built its technology and its science along these lines. So where does this leave knowledge organization? In the semantic Web and the magical kingdoms that will follow it, it will be necessary to make samenessdifference decisions of a different sort, to provide the ability to make heretofore unimaginable connections. Elsewhere I have asked when a funeral urn is like a ship's log: the answer is when the instantiation set has the same calculus in its scope, which tells us that the two artifacts have approximately equal impact factors along some cultural or social trajectory. These are the sorts of questions knowledge organization can be able to answer if we can move toward a large base of empirical evidence to which similarity measures can be applied and from which new hypotheses can be drawn to direct investigation. Why have these questions not yet been answered? Because they have not yet been posed."
    Date
    12. 6.2008 20:18:22
  4. Smiraglia, R.P.: Keywords redux : an editorial (2015) 0.02 
    0.018902827 = product of:
  0.056708477 = sum of:
    0.035277586 = weight(_text_:web in 2099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035277586 = score(doc=2099,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 2099, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2099)
    0.02143089 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02143089 = score(doc=2099,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12824841 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 2099, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2099)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    In KO volume 40 number 3 (2013) I included an editorial about keywords-both about the absence prior to that date of designated keywords in articles in Knowledge Organization, and about the misuse of the idea by some other journal publications (Smiraglia 2013). At the time I was chagrined to discover how little correlation there was across the formal indexing of a small set of papers from our journal, and especially to see how little correspondence there was between actual keywords appearing in the published texts, and any of the indexing supplied by either Web of Science or LISTA (Thomson Reuters' Web of ScienceT (WoS) and EBSCOHost's Library and Information Science and Technology Abstracts with Full Text (LISTA). The idea of a keyword arose in the early days of automated indexing, when it was discovered that using terms that actually occurred in full texts (or, in the earliest days, in titles and abstracts) as search "keys," usually in Boolean combinations, provided fairly precise recall in small, contextually confined text corpora. A recent Wikipedia entry (Keywords 2015) embues keywords with properties of structural reasoning, but notes that they are "key" among the most frequently occurring terms in a text corpus. The jury is still out on whether keyword retrieval is better than indexing with subject headings, but in general, keyword searches in large, unstructured text corpora (which is what we have today) are imprecise and result in large recall sets with many irrelevant hits (see the recent analysis by Gross, Taylor and Joudrey (2014). Thus it seems inadvisable to me, as editor, especially of a journal on knowledge organization, to facilitate imprecise indexing of our journal's content.
  5. Smiraglia, R.P.: Authority control of works: cataloging's chimera? (2004) 0.02 
    0.018417625 = product of:
  0.055252872 = sum of:
    0.02494502 = weight(_text_:web in 5678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02494502 = score(doc=5678,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 5678, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5678)
    0.030307854 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.030307854 = score(doc=5678,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12824841 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 5678, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5678)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Explicit authority control of works is essentially non-existent. Our catalogs are built on a principle of controlling headings, and primarily headings for names of authors. Our syndetic structure creates a spider's web of networked relationships among forms of headings, but it ends there, despite the potential richness of depth among bibliographic entities. Effective authority control of works could yield richness in the catalog that would enhance retrieval capabilities. Works are considered to constitute the intellectual content of informative artifacts that may be collected and ordered for retrieval. In a 1992 study the author examined a random sample of works drawn from the catalog of the Georgetown University Library. For each progenitor work, an instantiation network (also referred to as a bibliographic family) was constituted. A detailed analysis of the linkages that would be required for authority control of these networks is reviewed here. A new study is also presented, in which Library of Congress authority records for the works in this sample are sought and analyzed. Results demonstrate a near total lack of control, with only 5.6% of works for which authority records were found. From a sample of 410 works, of which nearly half have instantiation networks, only 23 works could be said to have implicit authority control. However, many instantiation networks are made up of successive derivations that can be implicitly linked through collocation. The difficult work of explicitly linking instantiations comes with title changes, translations, and containing relations. The empirical evidence in the present study suggests that explicit control of expressions will provide the best control over instantiation networks because it is instantiations such as translations, abridgments, and adaptations that require explicit linking.
  6. Smiraglia, R.P.: Content metadata : an analysis of Etruscan artifacts in a museum of archeology (2005) 0.02 
    0.015987407 = product of:
  0.047962222 = sum of:
    0.036369424 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036369424 = score(doc=176,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12824841 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 176, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=176)
    0.011592798 = product of:
      0.034778394 = sum of:
        0.034778394 = weight(_text_:29 in 176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034778394 = score(doc=176,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14914064 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042397358 = queryNorm
            0.23319192 = fieldWeight in 176, 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=176)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Metadata schemes target resources as information-packages, without attention to the distinction between content and carrier. Most schema are derived without empirical understanding of the concepts that need to be represented, the ways in which terms representing the central concepts might best be derived, and how metadata descriptions will be used for retrieval. Research is required to resolve this dilemma, and much research will be required if the plethora of schemes that already exist are to be made efficacious for resource description and retrieval. Here I report the results of a preliminary study, which was designed to see whether the bibliographic concept of "the work" could be of any relevance among artifacts held by a museum. I extend the "works metaphor" from the bibliographic to the artifactual domain, by altering the terms of the definition slightly, thus: 1) instantiation is understood as content genealogy. Case studies of Etruscan artifacts from the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology are used to demonstrate the inherence of the work in non-documentary artifacts.
    Date
    29. 9.2008 19:14:41
  7. Smiraglia, R.P.; Cai, X.: Tracking the evolution of clustering, machine learning, automatic indexing and automatic classification in knowledge organization (2017) 0.02 
    0.015458636 = product of:
  0.046375908 = sum of:
    0.02494502 = weight(_text_:web in 3627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02494502 = score(doc=3627,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 3627, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3627)
    0.02143089 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02143089 = score(doc=3627,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12824841 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 3627, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3627)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    A very important extension of the traditional domain of knowledge organization (KO) arises from attempts to incorporate techniques devised in the computer science domain for automatic concept extraction and for grouping, categorizing, clustering and otherwise organizing knowledge using mechanical means. Four specific terms have emerged to identify the most prevalent techniques: machine learning, clustering, automatic indexing, and automatic classification. Our study presents three domain analytical case analyses in search of answers. The first case relies on citations located using the ISKO-supported "Knowledge Organization Bibliography." The second case relies on works in both Web of Science and SCOPUS. Case three applies co-word analysis and citation analysis to the contents of the papers in the present special issue. We observe scholars involved in "clustering" and "automatic classification" who share common thematic emphases. But we have found no coherence, no common activity and no social semantics. We have not found a research front, or a common teleology within the KO domain. We also have found a lively group of authors who have succeeded in submitting papers to this special issue, and their work quite interestingly aligns with the case studies we report. There is an emphasis on KO for information retrieval; there is much work on clustering (which involves conceptual points within texts) and automatic classification (which involves semantic groupings at the meta-document level).
  8. Smiraglia, R.P.: Facets as discourse in knowledge organization : a case study in LISTA (2017) 0.02 
    0.015458636 = product of:
  0.046375908 = sum of:
    0.02494502 = weight(_text_:web in 3855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02494502 = score(doc=3855,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 3855, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3855)
    0.02143089 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02143089 = score(doc=3855,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12824841 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 3855, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3855)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Knowledge Organization Systems (KOSs) use arrays of related concepts to capture the ontological content of a domain; hierarchical structures are typical of such systems. Some KOSs also employ sets of crossconceptual descriptors that express different dimensions within a domain-facets. The recent increase in the prominence of facets and faceted systems has had major impact on the intension of the KO domain and this is visible in the domain's literature. An interesting question is how the discourse surrounding facets in KO and in related domains such as information science might be described. The present paper reports one case study in an ongoing research project to investigate the discourse of facets in KO. In this particular case, the formal current research literature represented by inclusion in the "Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts, Full Text" (LISTA) database is analyzed to discover aspects of the research front and its ongoing discourse concerning facets. A datasets of 1682 citations was analyzed. Results show thinking concerning information retrieval and the semantic web resides alongside implementation of faceted searching and the growth of faceted thesauri. Faceted classification remains important to the discourse, but the use of facet analysis is linked directly to applied aspects of information science.
  9. Smiraglia, R.P.; Heuvel, C. van den; Dousa, T.M.: Interactions between elementary structures in universes of knowledge (2011) 0.01 
    0.014358928 = product of:
  0.043076783 = sum of:
    0.029934023 = weight(_text_:web in 4812) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029934023 = score(doc=4812,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 4812, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4812)
    0.01314276 = product of:
      0.03942828 = sum of:
        0.03942828 = weight(_text_:system in 4812) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03942828 = score(doc=4812,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13353272 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042397358 = queryNorm
            0.29527056 = fieldWeight in 4812, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4812)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Contrasts in 20th century classification theory relate to a transition from a universe of "knowledge" system towards one of "concepts' Initiatives to develop a Simple Knowledge Organization Systems (SKOS) standard based on classification schemes and taxonomies within the framework of the Semantic Web (SW) are attempts to bridge the gap. Current knowledge organization systems (KOS) seem to reinforce "syntactics" at the expense of semantics. We claim that all structure is syntactic but knowledge structures need to have a semantic component as well. Therefore we consider classifications as artificial languages. The Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) constitutes a natural language-independent notation system that allows for mediating between concepts and knowledge systems. We discuss an elementary theory of knowledge organization based on the structure of knowledge rather than on the content of documents. Semantics becomes not a matter of synonymous concepts, but rather of coordinating knowledge structures. The interactions between these systems represent interactions between different universes of knowledge or concepts.
  10. Scharnhorst, A.; Salah, A.A.; Gao, C.; Suchecki, K.; Smiraglia, R.P.: ¬The evolution of knowledge, and its representation in classification systems (2011) 0.01 
    0.012786265 = product of:
  0.038358796 = sum of:
    0.02494502 = weight(_text_:web in 4830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02494502 = score(doc=4830,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13836423 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 4830, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4830)
    0.013413775 = product of:
      0.040241323 = sum of:
        0.040241323 = weight(_text_:system in 4830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.040241323 = score(doc=4830,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.13353272 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042397358 = queryNorm
            0.30135927 = fieldWeight in 4830, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4830)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    Classification systems are often described as stable reference systems. Sometimes they are accused of being inflexible concerning the coverage of new ideas and scientific fields. Classification as an activity is the basis of all theory-generating research, and also plays a powerful role in social ordering. It is obvious that the ways in which we seek information and in which information is provided has changed dramatically since the emergence of digital information processing and even more with the internet, and web-based technologies. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the notion of a stable knowledge organization classification as a temporary stationary manifestation of an open and evolving system of classification. We compare the structure of the main classes in the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) according to their usage of special auxiliaries to demonstrate the dynamic evolution of the UDC over time, as a stable reference system representing published organized knowledge. We view the ecology of the UDC, and discover that most changes are to the ecology itself as numbers are re-interpreted. This subtle type of change is a key to monitoring the evolution of knowledge as it is represented in the UDC's stable reference system.
  11. Smiraglia, R.P.: ¬The progress of theory in knowledge organization (2002) 0.01 
    0.0107943965 = product of:
  0.03238319 = sum of:
    0.02143089 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 811) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02143089 = score(doc=811,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12824841 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 811, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=811)
    0.010952301 = product of:
      0.032856904 = sum of:
        0.032856904 = weight(_text_:system in 811) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032856904 = score(doc=811,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.13353272 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042397358 = queryNorm
            0.24605882 = fieldWeight in 811, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=811)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    We understand "theory" to be a system of testable explanatory statements derived from research. In knowledge organization, the generation of theory has moved from an epistemic stance of pragmatism (based on observation of the construction of retrieval tools), to empiricism (based on the results of empirical research). In the nineteenth century, Panizzi (1841), Cutter (1876), and Dewey (1876), developed very pragmatic tools (i.e., catalogs and classifications), explaining as they did so the principles by which their tools were constructed. By 1950, key papers at a University of Chicago Graduate Library School conference on "Bibliographic Organization" recorded the role of bibliographic organization in civilization (Clapp, 1950) and deemed classification the basis of bibliographic organization (Shera, 1950). In 1961, the International Conference on Cataloguing Principles in Paris brought together key thinkers on the design of catalogs. Wilson (1968) expounded a system for bibliographic apparatus, and provided the framework for empirical theoretical development. In 2000, Svenonius asserted that knowledge organization is accomplished through a bibliographic language (or, more properly through a complex set of bibliographic languages), with semantics, syntax, pragmatics, and rules to govern their implementation. Logical positivism notwithstanding, rationalist and historicist stances have begun to come to the fore of late through the promulgation of qualitative methods, most notably those employed in classification, user-interface design, and bibliometric research.
  12. Scharnhorst, A.; Smiraglia, R.P.; Guéret, C.; Salah, A.A.A.: Knowledge maps for libraries and archives : uses and use cases (2015) 0.01 
    0.010658272 = product of:
  0.031974815 = sum of:
    0.024246283 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024246283 = score(doc=2304,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.12824841 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.18905719 = fieldWeight in 2304, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2304)
    0.007728532 = product of:
      0.023185596 = sum of:
        0.023185596 = weight(_text_:29 in 2304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023185596 = score(doc=2304,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14914064 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042397358 = queryNorm
            0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 2304, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2304)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    At the last Digital Library Conference in London two workshops took place - both (in parallel) devoted to the use of visualization in presenting and navigating large collections. One was entitled Search Is Over! and of the other Knowledge Maps and Information Retrieval. This anecdotal evidence stands for the growing and accelerating quest for visually enhanced interfaces to collections. Researchers from information visualization, computer human interaction, information retrieval, bibliometrics, digital humanities, art and network theory in parallel, often also in ignorance of each other, sometimes in interdisciplinary alliances are engaged in this quest. This paper reviews the current state-of-the-art, with special emphasis on the work of the COST Action TD1210 Knowescape. We discuss in more depth two examples of the use of visual analytics to create a fingerprint of an archive or a library, a data archive and a national library. We present examples from the micro-level of monitoring activities of users, over the meso-level to visualize features of bibliographic records, to macroscopes (a term coined by Katy Borner) into libraries and archives. We also discuss how different ways to perform visual analytics inform each other, how they are related to questions of data mining and statistical analysis, and which methods need to be combined or which communities need to collaborate. To illustrate some of these points we analysed Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) codes in bibliographic datasets of the National Library of Portugal. This is a potential still awaiting to be fully exploited in improving interfaces to subject access and management of classification data. It should be noted that UDC notation strings stored in bibliographic databases require specialist knowledge in both UDC and programming for any visualization tools to be applied. This UDC Seminar which is devoted to authority control is an opportunity to draw attention to the possibilities in visualization whose wider application depends on the readily structured, richer and more transparent subject metadata.
    Source
    Classification and authority control: expanding resource discovery: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar 2015, 29-30 October 2015, Lisbon, Portugal. Eds.: Slavic, A. u. M.I. Cordeiro
  13. Smiraglia, R.P.: Further reflections on the nature of a work : introduction (2002) 0.01 
    0.010001082 = product of:
  0.06000649 = sum of:
    0.06000649 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06000649 = score(doc=5623,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.12824841 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 5623, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5623)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    The purpose of this volume is to extend our understanding of the work entity and its role in information retrieval. Basic definitions are reviewed to provide a summary of current thought about works, their role in the catalog, and the potential for better accommodating them in future information retrieval environments. A discussion of entities for information retrieval and works as entities follows. Research in knowledge organization is summarized, indicating ways in which ontology, epistemology, and semiotics have lately been used as looking glasses through which to view the social informational roles of works.
    Content
    Beitrag eines Themenheftes "Works as entities for information retrieval"
  14. Smiraglia, R.P.: Works as signs, symbols,and canons : The epistemology of the work (2001) 0.01 
    0.009584186 = product of:
  0.057505112 = sum of:
    0.057505112 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057505112 = score(doc=1119,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.12824841 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.44838852 = fieldWeight in 1119, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1119)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    Works are key entities in the universe of recorded knowledge. Works are those deliberate creations (known variously as opera, oeuvres, Werke, etc.) that constitute individual sets of created conceptions that stand as the formal records of knowledge. In the information retrieval domain, the work as opposed to the document, has only recently received focused attention. In this paper, the definition of the work as an entity for information retrieval is examined. A taxonomic definition (that is, a definition built around a taxonomy) is presented. An epistemological perspective aids in understanding the components of the taxonomic definition. Works, thus defined as entities for information retrieval, are seen to constitute sets of varying instantiations of abstract creations. These variant instantiations must be explicitly identified in future systems for documentary information retrieval. An expanded perception of works, such as that presented in this paper, helps us understand the variety of ways in which mechanisms for their control and retrieval might better be shaped in future.
  15. Smiraglia, R.P.: Bibliographic families and superworks (2007) 0.01 
    0.008572357 = product of:
  0.051434137 = sum of:
    0.051434137 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1674) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.051434137 = score(doc=1674,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12824841 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 1674, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1674)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Source
    Understanding FRBR: what it is and how it will affect our retrieval tools. Ed. by Arlene Taylor
  16. Smiraglia, R.P.: Knowledge sharing and content genealogy : extensing the "works" model as a metaphor for non-documentary artefacts with case studies of Etruscan artefacts (2004) 0.01 
    0.0082910815 = product of:
  0.024873244 = sum of:
    0.017144712 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017144712 = score(doc=2671,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12824841 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 2671, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2671)
    0.007728532 = product of:
      0.023185596 = sum of:
        0.023185596 = weight(_text_:29 in 2671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023185596 = score(doc=2671,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14914064 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042397358 = queryNorm
            0.15546128 = fieldWeight in 2671, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5176873 = idf(docFreq=3565, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2671)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Abstract
    The harmonization and extension of a taxonomy of works from the documentary to the artefactual domain represents an attempt to further knowledge sharing across cultural boundaries. The uses and users of works, both documentary and artefactual, are global-the need for this advance in the organization of knowledge is therefore also global. Works are the formal records of knowledge, the essential records of human accomplishment. Works are a global phenomenon despite potential cultural variations in their creation and instantiation, and the need to organize works for retrieval is likewise a global phenomenon. Artefacts (sculptures, paintings, realia, documents, books, scores, recordings, etc.) are the physical media collected by repositories of culture (libraries, archives, museums, etc.), and are the means by which works are communicated. Works mutate and derive across time and culture in response to their entrance into a canon of cultural meaning. In the present paper, we review the characteristics of documentary works. Then we extend the metaphor from the documentary environment to the artefactual environment. To carry the metaphor from the documentary domain to the artefactual domain we alter the terms of the definition slightly, thus: 1) instantiation is understood as content genealogy. an epistemological architecture of content-genealogy is presented, demonstrating the potential for mutation and derivation of the representations of artefacts. Case studies of Etruscan artefacts from the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology are used to demonstrate the inherence of the work in nondocumentary artefacts. An outline of a meta-theory of "works" is presented that harmonizes the documentary and artefactual domains.
    Date
    29. 8.2004 19:05:56
  17. Smiraglia, R.P.: Curating and virtual shelves : an editorial (2006) 0.01 
    0.0074773068 = product of:
  0.02243192 = sum of:
    0.018559696 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018559696 = score(doc=409,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12824841 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.14471677 = fieldWeight in 409, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=409)
    0.003872223 = product of:
      0.011616669 = sum of:
        0.011616669 = weight(_text_:system in 409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.011616669 = score(doc=409,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13353272 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042397358 = queryNorm
            0.08699492 = fieldWeight in 409, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=409)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.33333334 = coord(2/6)
    Content
    "Actions have consequences, and this is certainly true of knowledge organization. One reason our colleague Birger Hjoerland (1998) urges epistemological analysis for the problems of information science is that resources might well serve many different purposes for different users, and thus different user groups might have different epistemological relationships with resources. There is a difference between consulting a dictionary for a definition, reading a text for comprehension to increase your knowledge base, reading for pleasure (which, evidently boosts certain endorphins), and synthesizing a scientific report to generate an hypothesis, just to generate a few scenarios. The only commonality in that list is the consultation of a resource. In each case the purpose dictates the activity and is reliant upon a different epistemological aim. No online source of facts is going to suffice if I want something to read that will give me pleasure; no catalog of fine literature is sufficient for the extraction of scientific theory. Hjoerland also suggests that the names we give - to documents, to categories, even to activities - embodies the action of naming, and thereby also the action of facilitating or obfuscating the use of named resources (Hjoerland 2003, 98). Terminology cannot be neutral because the very selection of terms as names either provides a pathway to understanding or a barrier to usage, depending on the epistemological perspective of the user group. I won't go looking for Miss Marple in your dictionary if you call it a dictionary, even though it might contain a perfectly fine list of motives for murder. Likewise, as an information scientist I am not likely to look for research anywhere except in a database that purports to contain peer-reviewed scientific literature. Names have power, and the action of naming is powerful too. We in knowledge organization need to be aware that no matter how elegant our science, the actions based on our research have consequences. A model generated empirically might make an excellent explanation of a specific reality, but if it migrates into the structure of a system for knowledge organization it has the power to help or hinder assignment to categories, not to mention retrieval from those categories.
    An important aspect of what we do is facilitating the curatorial aspect of information retrieval or librarianship. What I mean is that our job is not merely to "mark and park," as generations of catalogers famously have said of both resource description and classification, or even to generate parking spaces (to press my metaphor), but rather our job is to place each entity in the best category, each artifact in the best environment, each resource on the best "shelf" to enhance its usability should it actually be sought for retrieval. Hope Olson (2002) has also written about the limits we create when we exercise the power to name. We must be aware of the consequences of our science. In librarianship in the United States at the moment there is a fair amount of hand-wringing about the future, and this anxiety has been fed by the report of Karen Calhoun on the changing nature of the catalog. Calhoun (2006) suggests that the library community should abandon many of its expensive knowledge organization practices - such as the Library of Congress Subject Headings - in favor of integration of search engines into library catalogs. As logical as this seems on the face of it (and as much as we might often have wished LCSH would go away!), purveyors of such notions have either forgotten or rejected the notion of the library as a social instrument, and therefore the order of things in libraries as an extension of that social role. We must also view knowledge organization then as a cultural enterprise, a social act that has consequences. The ontologies we use to devise categorical schemes imply certain realities. If we say there is no music other than Western Art, why, then there must be no point in paying any attention to music of any other sort, right? And if we say that UFOs are a kind of controversial knowledge, we join the community of non-believers who insist that UFOs do not exist. Surely if we thought they were viable phenomena we would create a concrete class for them (see DDC 001.942). Voila, now we know, UFOs do not exist - the DDC says so. And if a gay adolescent searches for literature to help understand and finds that it all falls under "perversion" then we have oppressed yet another youth (see Campbell 2001). Our actions have social consequences.
  18. Smiraglia, R.P.: Derivative bibliographic relationships : linkages in the bibliographic universe (1994) 0.01 
    0.0071436297 = product of:
  0.04286178 = sum of:
    0.04286178 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3043) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04286178 = score(doc=3043,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.12824841 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 3043, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3043)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    A major problem for bibliographic retrieval is an absence of explicit linkages to guide users among manifestations of a work. The purpose of this research was to enhance the power of bibliographic retrieval systems by providing contextual information about the derivative bibliographic relationship. Descriptive survey method was employed. A sample of 411 works from the Georgetown University on-line catalog was drawn. 49.9% of works were derivative. Age of a progenitor work is the characteristic most strongly associated with derivation; language and country of origin are indifferent predictors. Popularity of works might contribute to the phenomenon of derivation. The mean size of bibliographic families of derivative works was 8.44 members. The majority of bibliographic families had successive derivations, large groups of bibliographic families had translations and simultaneous editions; few had extractions, amplifications, or performances; none had adaptations. Successive derivations are the most commonly found members of bibliographic families, and are associated with most other types of derivation within bibliographic families. The bibliographic data required for explicit control of works might easily be compiled from existing records. The development of bibliographic retrieval systems in the network environment could play a dramatic role in improving retrieval of works
  19. Smiraglia, R.P.: Classification interaction demonstrated empirically (2014) 0.01 
    0.006927283 = product of:
  0.041563697 = sum of:
    0.041563697 = product of:
      0.062345542 = sum of:
        0.027880006 = weight(_text_:system in 1420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027880006 = score(doc=1420,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13353272 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042397358 = queryNorm
            0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 1420, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1420)
        0.034465536 = weight(_text_:22 in 1420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034465536 = score(doc=1420,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14846832 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042397358 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1420, 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=1420)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    There is greater depth in knowledge organization systems beyond the surface of hierarchically-structured concepts. Deconstructed elements of a knowledge organization system share network-like relationships that might be used in interaction with the characteristics of documents to provide "classification interaction" as a means of identifying previously undiscovered relationships. A random sample of UDC call numbers from the online catalog of the Catholic University of Leuven (KU Leuven) is analyzed to discover interactions among conceptual classification, instantiation, and bibliographic demographic characteristics. The associations demonstrated represent ways in which predictable interactions occur among classified bibliographic entities and the components of the rich UDC classification.
    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
  20. Smiraglia, R.P.: About knowledge organization : an editorial (2005) 0.01 
    0.0061306814 = product of:
  0.036784086 = sum of:
    0.036784086 = weight(_text_:wide in 6087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036784086 = score(doc=6087,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18785246 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042397358 = queryNorm
        0.1958137 = fieldWeight in 6087, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6087)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)
    Abstract
    What exactly is "knowledge organization?" It turns out there are many different definitions and not all scholars within the domain agree. The Consulting Editors of this journal have asked the ISKO Scientific Advisory Council to consider a concise definition of knowledge organization, and especially to consider its relationship with the more recently evolved term, "knowledge management," as well. The debate will likely be lengthy; I invite readers to watch these pages for developments as they become available. Of course, ISKO members have a common sensibility about the meaning of knowledge organization. Our Society's organizing charter says that "it is the aim of the Society to promote research, development and application of all methods for the organization of knowledge in general or of particular fields by integrating especially the conceptual approaches of classification research and artificial intelligence." The charter also specifies that "The Society stresses philosophicological, psychological and semantic approaches for a conceptual order of objects." Our journal's statement of scope and aims suggests we are interested in "questions of the adequate structuring and construction of ordering systems and on the problems of their use." Our aim as a journal is to provide "a forum for all those interested in the organization of knowledge on a universal or domain-specific scale, using concept-analytical or concept-synthetical approaches, as well as quantitative and qualitative methodologies." What we can gather from these statements is that the core of our domain is the ordering of what is known, that that ordering might be accomplished in various ways but that concepts are critical lynchpins, and that a wide variety of scientific approaches fall within our embrace. Still, as all scholars know, a definition of a tern may not include the term being defined; ergo, we cannot define knowledge organization as the organization of knowledge [!] - consequently we have charged ISKO to consider whether The Society can provide core definitions.

Authors

Years

Types

  • a 48
  • el 1
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Themes