Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

0.02664893 = product of:
  0.079946786 = sum of:
    0.079946786 = sum of:
      0.045673028 = weight(_text_:database in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.045673028 = score(doc=629,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.20452234 = queryWeight, product of:
            4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050593734 = queryNorm
          0.2233156 = fieldWeight in 629, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=629)
      0.034273762 = weight(_text_:22 in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034273762 = score(doc=629,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17717063 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.050593734 = 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)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.017446015 = product of:
  0.052338045 = sum of:
    0.052338045 = weight(_text_:reference in 2290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.052338045 = score(doc=2290,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.205834 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050593734 = queryNorm
        0.2542731 = fieldWeight in 2290, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2290)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

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

0.010765236 = product of:
  0.032295708 = sum of:
    0.032295708 = product of:
      0.064591415 = sum of:
        0.064591415 = weight(_text_:database in 4651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.064591415 = score(doc=4651,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.20452234 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.31581596 = fieldWeight in 4651, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4651)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

It is argued that data should be defined as information on properties of units of analysis. Epistemologically it is important to establish that what is considered data by somebody need not be data for somebody else. This article considers the nature of data and "big data" and the relation between data, information, knowledge and documents. It is common for all these concepts that they are about phenomena produced in specific contexts for specific purposes and may be represented in documents, including as representations in databases. In that process, they are taken out of their original contexts and put into new ones and thereby data loses some or all their meaning due to the principle of semantic holism. Some of this lost meaning should be reestablished in the databases and the representations of data/documents cannot be understood as a neutral activity, but as an activity supporting the overall goal implicit in establishing the database. To utilize (big) data (as it is the case with utilizing information, knowledge and documents) demands first of all the identification of the potentials of these data for relevant purposes. The most fruitful theoretical frame for knowledge organization and data science is the social epistemology suggested by Shera (1951). One important aspect about big data is that they are often unintentional traces we leave during all kinds of activities. Their potential to inform somebody about something is therefore less direct compared to data that have been produced intentionally as, for example, scientific databases.

0.009252146 = product of:
  0.027756438 = sum of:
    0.027756438 = weight(_text_:reference in 5079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027756438 = score(doc=5079,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.205834 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.050593734 = queryNorm
        0.13484865 = fieldWeight in 5079, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.0683694 = idf(docFreq=2055, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5079)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

The concept of information as we use it in everyday English, in the sense of knowledge communicated, plays a central role in contemporary society. The development and widespread use of computer networks since the end of World War II, and the emergence of information science as a discipline in the 1950s, are evidence of this focus. Although knowledge and its communication are basic phenomena of every human society, it is the rise of information technology and its global impacts that characterize ours as an information society. It is commonplace to consider information as a basic condition for economic development together with capital, labor, and raw material; but what makes information especially significant at present is its digital nature. The impact of information technology an the natural and social sciences in particular has made this everyday notion a highly controversial concept. Claude Shannon's (1948) "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" is a landmark work, referring to the common use of information with its semantic and pragmatic dimensions, while at the same time redefining the concept within an engineering framework. The fact that the concept of knowledge communication has been designated by the word information seems, prima facie, a linguistic happenstance. For a science like information science (IS), it is of course important how fundamental terms are defined; and in IS, as in other fields, the question of how to define information is often raised. This chapter is an attempt to review the status of the concept of information in IS, with reference also to interdisciplinary trends. In scientific discourse, theoretical concepts are not true or false elements or glimpses of some element of reality; rather, they are constructions designed to do a job in the best possible way. Different conceptions of fundamental terms like information are thus more or less fruitful, depending an the theories (and in the end, the practical actions) they are expected to support. In the opening section, we discuss the problem of defining terms from the perspective of the philosophy of science. The history of a word provides us with anecdotes that are tangential to the concept itself. But in our case, the use of the word information points to a specific perspective from which the concept of knowledge communication has been defined. This perspective includes such characteristics as novelty and relevante; i.e., it refers to the process of knowledge transformation, and particularly to selection and interpretation within a specific context. The discussion leads to the questions of why and when this meaning was designated with the word information. We will explore this history, and we believe that our results may help readers better understand the complexity of the concept with regard to its scientific definitions.

0.009134606 = product of:
  0.027403818 = sum of:
    0.027403818 = product of:
      0.054807637 = sum of:
        0.054807637 = weight(_text_:database in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.054807637 = score(doc=444,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.20452234 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.26797873 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.042444 = idf(docFreq=2109, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Abstract

A citation index is a bibliographic database that provides citation links between documents. The first modern citation index was suggested by the researcher Eugene Garfield in 1955 and created by him in 1964, and it represents an important innovation to knowledge organization and information retrieval. This article describes citation indexes in general, considering the modern citation indexes, including Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Crossref, Dimensions and some special citation indexes and predecessors to the modern citation index like Shepard's Citations. We present comparative studies of the major ones and survey theoretical problems related to the role of citation indexes as subject access points (SAP), recognizing the implications to knowledge organization and information retrieval. Finally, studies on citation behavior are presented and the influence of citation indexes on knowledge organization, information retrieval and the scientific information ecosystem is recognized.

0.007997211 = product of:
  0.023991633 = sum of:
    0.023991633 = product of:
      0.047983266 = sum of:
        0.047983266 = weight(_text_:22 in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047983266 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17717063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

21. 7.2006 14:11:22

0.007997211 = product of:
  0.023991633 = sum of:
    0.023991633 = product of:
      0.047983266 = sum of:
        0.047983266 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047983266 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17717063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Pages

S.22-36

0.006854752 = product of:
  0.020564256 = sum of:
    0.020564256 = product of:
      0.041128512 = sum of:
        0.041128512 = weight(_text_:22 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.041128512 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17717063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

17. 3.2011 19:22:55

0.005712294 = product of:
  0.017136881 = sum of:
    0.017136881 = product of:
      0.034273762 = sum of:
        0.034273762 = weight(_text_:22 in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034273762 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17717063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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

0.005712294 = product of:
  0.017136881 = sum of:
    0.017136881 = product of:
      0.034273762 = sum of:
        0.034273762 = weight(_text_:22 in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.034273762 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17717063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

18.11.2023 13:47:22

0.002856147 = product of:
  0.008568441 = sum of:
    0.008568441 = product of:
      0.017136881 = sum of:
        0.017136881 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017136881 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17717063 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.050593734 = queryNorm
            0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 3.2009 18:13:27