Search (10 results, page 1 of 1)

0.0702403 = product of:
  0.10536044 = sum of:
    0.097364895 = weight(_text_:me in 1919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.097364895 = score(doc=1919,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.3430384 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.2660704 = idf(docFreq=83, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047210995 = queryNorm
        0.28383088 = fieldWeight in 1919, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          7.2660704 = idf(docFreq=83, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1919)
    0.007995548 = product of:
      0.015991095 = sum of:
        0.015991095 = weight(_text_:22 in 1919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015991095 = score(doc=1919,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16532487 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047210995 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6666667 = coord(2/3)

Content

"1. What is? Many of us equate the principle activity of knowledge organization with that of ontology, which at its essence is the revelation of the structure of a domain. Among the essential choices that must be made in the construction of ontology are those involving "IsA" relationships. "What is a" is the primary question that defines what belongs inside a set and what, therefore, does not. Employing Dahlberg's concept-theoretic is one approach to defining the elements that belong in a set, although there are many other approaches as well. Whatever method is used, once a set is constituted its members will be considered to be like each other in some way, in other words, they are thought to be the same in some manner, or to some degree. Which leads naturally to the question of how alike must two entities be to be declared the same? Or its correlate, how dissimilar must they be to be declared different? Pondering this question led me to think about musical works that are of the genre "variations on a theme by X." In such works a composer uses a musical mnemonic-a melody usually-to draw listeners into the aural experience, and then, subsequent iterations all contain this original mnemonic but surround it or manipulate it in various ways. The result is always iterative but never boring because each iteration is subtly (or not so subtly) different from the last. And the technique allows the character of the original to be explored fully as well as for it to be reinterpreted by the current composer. In the end it is not so unlike, although a lot more interesting than, multiple citations by an author of another's works- say, like the way each time I cite Patrick Wilson it comes out a little differently. Same but different. Sameness and difference turn out to be essential philosophical positions. Many of the philosophical points of view brought to bear on knowledge organization suggest one or more points of view about this essential question. Semiotics (for example) suggests that signs are always being interpreted anew, phenomenology suggests entities might appear differently as a matter of their individual perception. All points of view are useful because they all shed light on formerly dark corners of the essential questions in knowledge organization.
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?

Date

12. 6.2008 20:18:22

0.04589825 = product of:
  0.13769475 = sum of:
    0.13769475 = weight(_text_:me in 2099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13769475 = score(doc=2099,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3430384 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.2660704 = idf(docFreq=83, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047210995 = queryNorm
        0.40139747 = fieldWeight in 2099, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.2660704 = idf(docFreq=83, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2099)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.022949126 = product of:
  0.06884737 = sum of:
    0.06884737 = weight(_text_:me in 409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06884737 = score(doc=409,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.3430384 = queryWeight, product of:
          7.2660704 = idf(docFreq=83, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047210995 = queryNorm
        0.20069873 = fieldWeight in 409, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          7.2660704 = idf(docFreq=83, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=409)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

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.

0.0063964385 = product of:
  0.019189315 = sum of:
    0.019189315 = product of:
      0.03837863 = sum of:
        0.03837863 = weight(_text_:22 in 1415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03837863 = score(doc=1415,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16532487 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047210995 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1415, 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=1415)
      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

0.0063964385 = product of:
  0.019189315 = sum of:
    0.019189315 = product of:
      0.03837863 = sum of:
        0.03837863 = weight(_text_:22 in 1420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03837863 = score(doc=1420,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16532487 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047210995 = 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)
      0.5 = 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

0.005330365 = product of:
  0.015991095 = sum of:
    0.015991095 = product of:
      0.03198219 = sum of:
        0.03198219 = weight(_text_:22 in 107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03198219 = score(doc=107,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16532487 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047210995 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 107, 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=107)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.005330365 = product of:
  0.015991095 = sum of:
    0.015991095 = product of:
      0.03198219 = sum of:
        0.03198219 = weight(_text_:22 in 630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03198219 = score(doc=630,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16532487 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047210995 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 630, 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=630)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 2.2013 11:09:49

0.005330365 = product of:
  0.015991095 = sum of:
    0.015991095 = product of:
      0.03198219 = sum of:
        0.03198219 = weight(_text_:22 in 636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03198219 = score(doc=636,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16532487 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047210995 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 636, 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=636)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Date

22. 2.2013 11:43:34

0.005330365 = product of:
  0.015991095 = sum of:
    0.015991095 = product of:
      0.03198219 = sum of:
        0.03198219 = weight(_text_:22 in 1412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03198219 = score(doc=1412,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16532487 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047210995 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1412, 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=1412)
      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

0.0042642923 = product of:
  0.012792877 = sum of:
    0.012792877 = product of:
      0.025585754 = sum of:
        0.025585754 = weight(_text_:22 in 770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025585754 = score(doc=770,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16532487 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.047210995 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 770, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=770)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.33333334 = coord(1/3)

Content

Vgl. auch den Beitrag: Treude, L.: Das Problem der Konzeptdefinition in der Wissensorganisation: über einen missglückten Versuch der Klärung. In: LIBREAS: Library ideas. no.22, 2013, S.xx-xx.