Search (805 results, page 1 of 41)

  • × year_i:[2010 TO 2020}
  1. Beak, J.; Smiraglia, R.P.: Contours of knowledge : core and granularity in the evolution of the DCMI domain (2014) 0.13
    0.12654331 = product of:
      0.25308663 = sum of:
        0.25308663 = sum of:
          0.21156374 = weight(_text_:core in 1415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.21156374 = score(doc=1415,freq=12.0), product of:
              0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
                5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051078856 = queryNorm
              0.82009846 = fieldWeight in 1415, product of:
                3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                  12.0 = termFreq=12.0
                5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1415)
          0.04152288 = weight(_text_:22 in 1415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.04152288 = score(doc=1415,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051078856 = 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)
    
    Abstract
    Domain analysis reveals the contours of knowledge in diverse discourse communities. The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) conferences represent the cutting edge of research in metadata for the digital age. Beak and Smiraglia (2013) discovered a shared epistemology revealed by co-citation perceptions of the domain, a common ontological base, social semantics, and a limited but focused intent. User groups did not emerge from that analysis, raising an interesting question about the content of core thematic extension versus a highly granular intension. We analyzed keywords from the titles by year to identify core and granular topics as they arose over time. The results showed that only 36 core keywords, e.g. "Dublin Core," "Metadata," "Linked Data," "Applications," etc. represents the domain's extension. However, there was much rich terminology among the granularity, e.g., "development," "description," "interoperability," "analysis," "applications," and "classification" and even "domain" pointed to the domain's intension.
    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
  2. Baker, T.: Dublin Core Application Profiles : current approaches (2010) 0.12
    0.11732663 = product of:
      0.23465326 = sum of:
        0.23465326 = sum of:
          0.19313039 = weight(_text_:core in 3737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.19313039 = score(doc=3737,freq=10.0), product of:
              0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
                5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051078856 = queryNorm
              0.74864405 = fieldWeight in 3737, product of:
                3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                  10.0 = termFreq=10.0
                5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3737)
          0.04152288 = weight(_text_:22 in 3737) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.04152288 = score(doc=3737,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051078856 = queryNorm
              0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 3737, 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=3737)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative currently defines a Dublin Core Application Profile as a set of specifications about the metadata design of a particular application or for a particular domain or community of users. The current approach to application profiles is summarized in the Singapore Framework for Application Profiles [SINGAPORE-FRAMEWORK] (see Figure 1). While the approach originally developed as a means of specifying customized applications based on the fifteen elements of the Dublin Core Element Set (e.g., Title, Date, Subject), it has evolved into a generic approach to creating metadata that meets specific local requirements while integrating coherently with other RDF-based metadata.
    Object
    Dublin Core Application Profiles
    Source
    Wissensspeicher in digitalen Räumen: Nachhaltigkeit - Verfügbarkeit - semantische Interoperabilität. Proceedings der 11. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation, Konstanz, 20. bis 22. Februar 2008. Hrsg.: J. Sieglerschmidt u. H.P.Ohly
  3. Golub, K.; Tudhope, D.; Zeng, M.L.; Zumer, M.: Terminology registries for knowledge organization systems : functionality, use, and attributes (2014) 0.11
    0.10713197 = product of:
      0.21426395 = sum of:
        0.21426395 = sum of:
          0.17274107 = weight(_text_:core in 1347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.17274107 = score(doc=1347,freq=8.0), product of:
              0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
                5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051078856 = queryNorm
              0.6696076 = fieldWeight in 1347, product of:
                2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                  8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1347)
          0.04152288 = weight(_text_:22 in 1347) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.04152288 = score(doc=1347,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051078856 = queryNorm
              0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1347, 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=1347)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Terminology registries (TRs) are a crucial element of the infrastructure required for resource discovery services, digital libraries, Linked Data, and semantic interoperability generally. They can make the content of knowledge organization systems (KOS) available both for human and machine access. The paper describes the attributes and functionality for a TR, based on a review of published literature, existing TRs, and a survey of experts. A domain model based on user tasks is constructed and a set of core metadata elements for use in TRs is proposed. Ideally, the TR should allow searching as well as browsing for a KOS, matching a user's search while also providing information about existing terminology services, accessible to both humans and machines. The issues surrounding metadata for KOS are also discussed, together with the rationale for different aspects and the importance of a core set of KOS metadata for future machine-based access; a possible core set of metadata elements is proposed. This is dealt with in terms of practical experience and in relation to the Dublin Core Application Profile.
    Date
    22. 8.2014 17:12:54
  4. Farazi, M.: Faceted lightweight ontologies : a formalization and some experiments (2010) 0.10
    0.103593364 = sum of:
      0.067605644 = product of:
        0.20281692 = sum of:
          0.20281692 = weight(_text_:3a in 4997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.20281692 = score(doc=4997,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.43304712 = queryWeight, product of:
                8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051078856 = queryNorm
              0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 4997, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4997)
        0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.03598772 = product of:
        0.07197544 = sum of:
          0.07197544 = weight(_text_:core in 4997) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.07197544 = score(doc=4997,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
                5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051078856 = queryNorm
              0.27900314 = fieldWeight in 4997, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4997)
        0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    While classifications are heavily used to categorize web content, the evolution of the web foresees a more formal structure - ontology - which can serve this purpose. Ontologies are core artifacts of the Semantic Web which enable machines to use inference rules to conduct automated reasoning on data. Lightweight ontologies bridge the gap between classifications and ontologies. A lightweight ontology (LO) is an ontology representing a backbone taxonomy where the concept of the child node is more specific than the concept of the parent node. Formal lightweight ontologies can be generated from their informal ones. The key applications of formal lightweight ontologies are document classification, semantic search, and data integration. However, these applications suffer from the following problems: the disambiguation accuracy of the state of the art NLP tools used in generating formal lightweight ontologies from their informal ones; the lack of background knowledge needed for the formal lightweight ontologies; and the limitation of ontology reuse. In this dissertation, we propose a novel solution to these problems in formal lightweight ontologies; namely, faceted lightweight ontology (FLO). FLO is a lightweight ontology in which terms, present in each node label, and their concepts, are available in the background knowledge (BK), which is organized as a set of facets. A facet can be defined as a distinctive property of the groups of concepts that can help in differentiating one group from another. Background knowledge can be defined as a subset of a knowledge base, such as WordNet, and often represents a specific domain.
    Content
    PhD Dissertation at International Doctorate School in Information and Communication Technology. Vgl.: https%3A%2F%2Fcore.ac.uk%2Fdownload%2Fpdf%2F150083013.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2n-qisNagpyT0lli_6QbAQ.
  5. Verwer, K.: Freiheit und Verantwortung bei Hans Jonas (2011) 0.08
    0.081126764 = product of:
      0.16225353 = sum of:
        0.16225353 = product of:
          0.4867606 = sum of:
            0.4867606 = weight(_text_:3a in 973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.4867606 = score(doc=973,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.43304712 = queryWeight, product of:
                  8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051078856 = queryNorm
                1.1240361 = fieldWeight in 973, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=973)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Content
    Vgl.: http%3A%2F%2Fcreativechoice.org%2Fdoc%2FHansJonas.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1TM3teaYKgABL5H9yoIifA&opi=89978449.
  6. Perugini, S.: Supporting multiple paths to objects in information hierarchies : faceted classification, faceted search, and symbolic links (2010) 0.07
    0.07460449 = product of:
      0.14920898 = sum of:
        0.14920898 = sum of:
          0.10076562 = weight(_text_:core in 4227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.10076562 = score(doc=4227,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
                5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051078856 = queryNorm
              0.39060444 = fieldWeight in 4227, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4227)
          0.04844336 = weight(_text_:22 in 4227) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.04844336 = score(doc=4227,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051078856 = queryNorm
              0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 4227, 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=4227)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    We present three fundamental, interrelated approaches to support multiple access paths to each terminal object in information hierarchies: faceted classification, faceted search, and web directories with embedded symbolic links. This survey aims to demonstrate how each approach supports users who seek information from multiple perspectives. We achieve this by exploring each approach, the relationships between these approaches, including tradeoffs, and how they can be used in concert, while focusing on a core set of hypermedia elements common to all. This approach provides a foundation from which to study, understand, and synthesize applications which employ these techniques. This survey does not aim to be comprehensive, but rather focuses on thematic issues.
    Source
    Information processing and management. 46(2010) no.1, S.22-43
  7. Theimer, S.: ¬A cataloger's resolution to become more creative : how and why (2012) 0.07
    0.07460449 = product of:
      0.14920898 = sum of:
        0.14920898 = sum of:
          0.10076562 = weight(_text_:core in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.10076562 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
                5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051078856 = queryNorm
              0.39060444 = fieldWeight in 1934, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1934)
          0.04844336 = weight(_text_:22 in 1934) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.04844336 = score(doc=1934,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051078856 = queryNorm
              0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1934, 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=1934)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Creativity is now a core requirement for successful organizations. Libraries, like all organizations, need to produce and utilize new ideas to improve user service and experiences. With changes in cataloging such as Resource Description and Access (RDA), the opportunity to rethink cataloging practices is here now. Everyone has creative potential, although catalogers may have both a personality and work environment that make it more difficult. To be able to maximize creative capacity, catalogers need the proper work environment, support from their organization, and a plan for accomplishing creative goals. Given that environment, catalogers may create ideas that will shape the future. (RDA).
    Date
    29. 5.2015 11:08:22
  8. Deokattey, S.; Sharma, S.B.K.; Kumar, G.R.; Bhanumurthy, K.: Knowledge organization research : an overview (2015) 0.07
    0.07460449 = product of:
      0.14920898 = sum of:
        0.14920898 = sum of:
          0.10076562 = weight(_text_:core in 2092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.10076562 = score(doc=2092,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
                5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051078856 = queryNorm
              0.39060444 = fieldWeight in 2092, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2092)
          0.04844336 = weight(_text_:22 in 2092) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.04844336 = score(doc=2092,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051078856 = queryNorm
              0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 2092, 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=2092)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The object of this literature review is to provide a historical perspective of R and D work in the area of Knowledge Organization (KO). This overview/summarization will provide information on major areas of KO. Journal articles published in core areas of KO: (Classification, Indexing, Thesauri and Taxonomies, Internet and Subject approach to information in the electronic era and Ontologies will be predominantly covered in this literature review. Coverage in this overview may not be completely exhaustive, but it succinctly showcases major developments in the area of KO. This review is a good source of additional reading material on KO apart from prescribed reading material on KO
    Date
    22. 6.2015 16:13:38
  9. Smiraglia, R.P.: Shifting intension in knowledge organization : an editorial (2012) 0.07
    0.06819552 = product of:
      0.13639104 = sum of:
        0.13639104 = sum of:
          0.10178865 = weight(_text_:core in 630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.10178865 = score(doc=630,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
                5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051078856 = queryNorm
              0.39457005 = fieldWeight in 630, product of:
                2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                  4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=630)
          0.0346024 = weight(_text_:22 in 630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.0346024 = score(doc=630,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051078856 = 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)
    
    Abstract
    In the keynote paper for the 12th International ISKO Conference in Mysore I discussed the dynamicity of the domain of knowledge organization from the perspective of ongoing domain analyses. Metaanalysis of a series of studies shows that knowledge organization is a strong, scientific community, with a distinct extension that now embraces the search for interoperability, and with intension that shifts along two continuums, one of which is methodological (or epistemological) and ranges from empirical experimental methods to humanistic narrative methods, while the other is more contextual and ranges from concept theory to applied KOS. These elements seem to remain core in knowledge organization as a domain over time (Smiraglia 2012). Another interesting finding is the degree to which the intension along that theory-application continuum is stretched by papers presented at regional ISKO chapter conferences. Since 2006 it has been the policy of this journal to offer to publish the leading papers from any peer-reviewed regional ISKO conference. The papers are selected by conference organizers and forwarded to Knowledge Organization for publication. By analyzing the papers separately we are able to see both the presence of the domain's core internationally and the constant tug and pull on the intension as authors bring new ideas and new research to regional conferences. This editorial, then, summarizes papers from regional conferences that have appeared in Knowledge Organization in 2011 and 2012.
    Date
    22. 2.2013 11:09:49
  10. Castanha, R.C.G.; Wolfram, D.: ¬The domain of knowledge organization : a bibliometric analysis of prolific authors and their intellectual space (2018) 0.07
    0.06819552 = product of:
      0.13639104 = sum of:
        0.13639104 = sum of:
          0.10178865 = weight(_text_:core in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.10178865 = score(doc=4150,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
                5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051078856 = queryNorm
              0.39457005 = fieldWeight in 4150, product of:
                2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                  4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4150)
          0.0346024 = weight(_text_:22 in 4150) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.0346024 = score(doc=4150,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051078856 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 4150, 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=4150)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The domain of knowledge organization (KO) represents a foundational area of information science. One way to better understand the intellectual structure of the KO domain is to apply bibliometric methods to key contributors to the literature. This study analyzes the most prolific contributing authors to the journal Knowledge Organization, the sources they cite and the citations they receive for the period 1993 to 2016. The analyses were conducted using visualization outcomes of citation, co-citation and author bibliographic coupling analysis to reveal theoretical points of reference among authors and the most prominent research themes that constitute this scientific community. Birger Hjørland was the most cited author, and was situated at or near the middle of each of the maps based on different citation relationships. The proximities between authors resulting from the different citation relationships demonstrate how authors situate themselves intellectually through the citations they give and how other authors situate them through the citations received. There is a consistent core of theoretical references as well among the most productive authors. We observed a close network of scholarly communication between the authors cited in this core, which indicates the actual role of the journal Knowledge Organization as a space for knowledge construction in the area of knowledge organization.
    Source
    Knowledge organization. 45(2018) no.1, S.13-22
  11. Kleineberg, M.: Context analysis and context indexing : formal pragmatics in knowledge organization (2014) 0.07
    0.067605644 = product of:
      0.13521129 = sum of:
        0.13521129 = product of:
          0.40563384 = sum of:
            0.40563384 = weight(_text_:3a in 1826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.40563384 = score(doc=1826,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.43304712 = queryWeight, product of:
                  8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051078856 = queryNorm
                0.93669677 = fieldWeight in 1826, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=1826)
          0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CDQQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdigbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de%2Fvolltexte%2Fdocuments%2F3131107&ei=HzFWVYvGMsiNsgGTyoFI&usg=AFQjCNE2FHUeR9oQTQlNC4TPedv4Mo3DaQ&sig2=Rlzpr7a3BLZZkqZCXXN_IA&bvm=bv.93564037,d.bGg&cad=rja
  12. Hjoerland, B.: ¬The importance of theories of knowledge : indexing and information retrieval as an example (2011) 0.06
    0.06394671 = product of:
      0.12789342 = sum of:
        0.12789342 = sum of:
          0.086370535 = weight(_text_:core in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.086370535 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
                5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051078856 = queryNorm
              0.3348038 = fieldWeight in 4359, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4359)
          0.04152288 = weight(_text_:22 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.04152288 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051078856 = 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)
    
    Abstract
    A recent study in information science (IS), raises important issues concerning the value of human indexing and basic theories of indexing and information retrieval, as well as the use of quantitative and qualitative approaches in IS and the underlying theories of knowledge informing the field. The present article uses L&E as the point of departure for demonstrating in what way more social and interpretative understandings may provide fruitful improvements for research in indexing, knowledge organization, and information retrieval. The artcle is motivated by the observation that philosophical contributions tend to be ignored in IS if they are not directly formed as criticisms or invitations to dialogs. It is part of the author's ongoing publication of articles about philosophical issues in IS and it is intended to be followed by analyzes of other examples of contributions to core issues in IS. Although it is formulated as a criticism of a specific paper, it should be seen as part of a general discussion of the philosophical foundation of IS and as a support to the emerging social paradigm in this field.
    Date
    17. 3.2011 19:22:55
  13. Huang, M.-H.; Huang, W.-T.; Chang, C.-C.; Chen, D. Z.; Lin, C.-P.: The greater scattering phenomenon beyond Bradford's law in patent citation (2014) 0.06
    0.06394671 = product of:
      0.12789342 = sum of:
        0.12789342 = sum of:
          0.086370535 = weight(_text_:core in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.086370535 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
                5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051078856 = queryNorm
              0.3348038 = fieldWeight in 1352, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1352)
          0.04152288 = weight(_text_:22 in 1352) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.04152288 = score(doc=1352,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051078856 = queryNorm
              0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1352, 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=1352)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Patent analysis has become important for management as it offers timely and valuable information to evaluate R&D performance and identify the prospects of patents. This study explores the scattering patterns of patent impact based on citations in 3 distinct technological areas, the liquid crystal, semiconductor, and drug technological areas, to identify the core patents in each area. The research follows the approach from Bradford's law, which equally divides total citations into 3 zones. While the result suggests that the scattering of patent citations corresponded with features of Bradford's law, the proportion of patents in the 3 zones did not match the proportion as proposed by the law. As a result, the study shows that the distributions of citations in all 3 areas were more concentrated than what Bradford's law proposed. The Groos (1967) droop was also presented by the scattering of patent citations, and the growth rate of cumulative citation decreased in the third zone.
    Date
    22. 8.2014 17:11:29
  14. Mustafa El Hadi, W.; Favier, L.: Bridging the gaps between knowledge organization and digital humanities (2014) 0.06
    0.06394671 = product of:
      0.12789342 = sum of:
        0.12789342 = sum of:
          0.086370535 = weight(_text_:core in 1462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.086370535 = score(doc=1462,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
                5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051078856 = queryNorm
              0.3348038 = fieldWeight in 1462, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1462)
          0.04152288 = weight(_text_:22 in 1462) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.04152288 = score(doc=1462,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051078856 = queryNorm
              0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1462, 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=1462)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    The common core activity for digital humanities and memory institutions such as libraries, archives, and museums is digitizing the representations of cultural and historical documents, images, and artifacts. Most of these resources are delivered online to users. The emergence of Digital Libraries in the early 1990s was a turning point and a critical component of the world-wide shift to networked information. This article focuses on the fundamental role of Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS) for the Humanities with a special attention to libraries as one of the actors of Digital Humanities. The interplay between Digital Libraries and Digital Humanities will be highlighted. Not only will they provide access to a host of source materials that humanists need in order to do their work, but Digital Libraries will also enable new forms of research that were difficult or impossible to undertake before.
    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
  15. Baga, J.; Hoover, L.; Wolverton, R.E.: Online, practical, and free cataloging resources (2013) 0.06
    0.06394671 = product of:
      0.12789342 = sum of:
        0.12789342 = sum of:
          0.086370535 = weight(_text_:core in 2603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.086370535 = score(doc=2603,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
                5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051078856 = queryNorm
              0.3348038 = fieldWeight in 2603, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
                0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2603)
          0.04152288 = weight(_text_:22 in 2603) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.04152288 = score(doc=2603,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051078856 = queryNorm
              0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2603, 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=2603)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This comprehensive annotated webliography describes online cataloging resources that are free to use, currently updated, and of high quality. The major aim of this webliography is to provide assistance for catalogers who are new to the profession, unfamiliar with cataloging specific formats, or unable to access costly print and subscription resources. The annotated resources include general websites and webpages, databases, workshop presentations, streaming media, and local documentation. The scope of the webliography is limited to resources reflecting traditional cataloging practices using the Anglo-American Cataloguing Rules, 2nd edition, RDA: Resource Description and Access, and MAchine Readable Cataloging (MARC) standards. Non-MARC metadata schemas like Dublin Core are not covered. Most components of cataloging are represented in this webliography, such as authority control, classification, subject headings, and genre terms. Guidance also is provided for cataloging miscellaneous formats including sound and videorecordings, streaming media, e-books, video games, graphic novels, kits, rare materials, maps, serials, realia, government documents, and music.
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  16. Zhu, Q.; Kong, X.; Hong, S.; Li, J.; He, Z.: Global ontology research progress : a bibliometric analysis (2015) 0.06
    0.06045531 = product of:
      0.12091062 = sum of:
        0.12091062 = sum of:
          0.07197544 = weight(_text_:core in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.07197544 = score(doc=2590,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
                5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051078856 = queryNorm
              0.27900314 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
          0.048935182 = weight(_text_:22 in 2590) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.048935182 = score(doc=2590,freq=4.0), product of:
              0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051078856 = queryNorm
              0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 2590, product of:
                2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                  4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2590)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to analyse the global scientific outputs of ontology research, an important emerging discipline that has huge potential to improve information understanding, organization, and management. Design/methodology/approach - This study collected literature published during 1900-2012 from the Web of Science database. The bibliometric analysis was performed from authorial, institutional, national, spatiotemporal, and topical aspects. Basic statistical analysis, visualization of geographic distribution, co-word analysis, and a new index were applied to the selected data. Findings - Characteristics of publication outputs suggested that ontology research has entered into the soaring stage, along with increased participation and collaboration. The authors identified the leading authors, institutions, nations, and articles in ontology research. Authors were more from North America, Europe, and East Asia. The USA took the lead, while China grew fastest. Four major categories of frequently used keywords were identified: applications in Semantic Web, applications in bioinformatics, philosophy theories, and common supporting technology. Semantic Web research played a core role, and gene ontology study was well-developed. The study focus of ontology has shifted from philosophy to information science. Originality/value - This is the first study to quantify global research patterns and trends in ontology, which might provide a potential guide for the future research. The new index provides an alternative way to evaluate the multidisciplinary influence of researchers.
    Date
    20. 1.2015 18:30:22
    17. 9.2018 18:22:23
  17. Madalli, D.P.; Chatterjee, U.; Dutta, B.: ¬An analytical approach to building a core ontology for food (2017) 0.06
    0.057580356 = product of:
      0.11516071 = sum of:
        0.11516071 = product of:
          0.23032142 = sum of:
            0.23032142 = weight(_text_:core in 3362) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.23032142 = score(doc=3362,freq=32.0), product of:
                0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
                  5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.051078856 = queryNorm
                0.8928101 = fieldWeight in 3362, product of:
                  5.656854 = tf(freq=32.0), with freq of:
                    32.0 = termFreq=32.0
                  5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3362)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the construction of a core ontology for food. To construct the core ontology, the authors propose here an approach called, yet another methodology for ontology plus (YAMO+). The goal is to exhibit the construction of a core ontology for a domain, which can be further extended and converted into application ontologies. Design/methodology/approach To motivate the construction of the core ontology for food, the authors have first articulated a set of application scenarios. The idea is that the constructed core ontology can be used to build application-specific ontologies for those scenarios. As part of the developmental approach to core ontology, the authors have proposed a methodology called YAMO+. It is designed following the theory of analytico-synthetic classification. YAMO+ is generic in nature and can be applied to build core ontologies for any domain. Findings Construction of a core ontology needs a thorough understanding of the domain and domain requirements. There are various challenges involved in constructing a core ontology as discussed in this paper. The proposed approach has proven to be sturdy enough to face the challenges that the construction of a core ontology poses. It is observed that core ontology is amenable to conversion to an application ontology. Practical implications The constructed core ontology for domain food can be readily used for developing application ontologies related to food. The proposed methodology YAMO+ can be applied to build core ontologies for any domain. Originality/value As per the knowledge, the proposed approach is the first attempt based on the study of the state of the art literature, in terms of, a formal approach to the design of a core ontology. Also, the constructed core ontology for food is the first one as there is no such ontology available on the web for domain food.
  18. Nathan, L.P.: Sustainable information practice : an ethnographic investigation (2012) 0.05
    0.05328892 = product of:
      0.10657784 = sum of:
        0.10657784 = sum of:
          0.07197544 = weight(_text_:core in 496) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.07197544 = score(doc=496,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
                5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051078856 = queryNorm
              0.27900314 = fieldWeight in 496, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=496)
          0.0346024 = weight(_text_:22 in 496) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.0346024 = score(doc=496,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051078856 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 496, 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=496)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    This project develops the concept of sustainable information practice within the field of information science. The inquiry is grounded by data from a study of 2 ecovillages, intentional communities striving to ground their daily activities in a set of core values related to sustainability. Ethnographic methods employed for over 2 years resulted in data from hundreds of hours of participant observation, semistructured interviews with 22 community members, and a diverse collection of community images and texts. Analysis of the data highlights the tensions that arose and remained as community members experienced breakdowns between community values related to sustainability and their daily information practices. Contributions to the field of information science include the development of the concept of sustainable information practice, an analysis of why community members felt unable to adapt their information practices to better match community concepts of sustainability, and an assessment of the methodological challenges of information practice inquiry within a communal, nonwork environment. Most broadly, this work contributes to our larger understanding of the challenges faced by those attempting to identify and develop more sustainable information practices. In addition, findings from this investigation call into question previous claims that groups of individuals with strong value commitments can adapt their use of information tools to better support their values. In contrast, this work suggests that information practices can be particularly resilient to local, value-based adaptation.
  19. Smiraglia, R.P.: ISKO 12's bookshelf - evolving intension : an editorial (2013) 0.05
    0.05328892 = product of:
      0.10657784 = sum of:
        0.10657784 = sum of:
          0.07197544 = weight(_text_:core in 636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.07197544 = score(doc=636,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
                5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051078856 = queryNorm
              0.27900314 = fieldWeight in 636, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=636)
          0.0346024 = weight(_text_:22 in 636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.0346024 = score(doc=636,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051078856 = 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)
    
    Abstract
    The 2012 biennial international research conference of the International Society for Knowledge Organization was held August 6-9, in Mysore, India. It was the second international ISKO conference to be held in India (Canada and India are the only countries to have hosted two international ISKO conferences), and for many attendees travel to the exotic Indian subcontinent was a new experience. Interestingly, the mix of people attending was quite different from recent meetings held in Europe or North America. The conference was lively and, as usual, jam-packed with new research. Registration took place on a veranda in the garden of the B. N. Bahadur Institute of Management Sciences where the meetings were held at the University of Mysore. This graceful tree (Figure 1) kept us company and kept watch over our considerations (as indeed it does over the academic enterprise of the Institute). The conference theme was "Categories, Contexts and Relations in Knowledge Organization." The opening and closing sessions fittingly were devoted to serious introspection about the direction of the domain of knowledge organization. This editorial, in line with those following past international conferences, is an attempt to comment on the state of the domain by reflecting domain-analytically on the proceedings of the conference, primarily using bibliometric measures. In general, it seems the domain is secure in its intellectual moorings, as it continues to welcome a broad granular array of shifting research questionsin its intension. It seems that the continual concretizing of the theoretical core of knowledge organization (KO) seems to act as a catalyst for emergent ideas, which can be observed as part of the evolving intension of the domain.
    Date
    22. 2.2013 11:43:34
  20. Wildemuth, B.; Freund, L.; Toms, E.G.: Untangling search task complexity and difficulty in the context of interactive information retrieval studies (2014) 0.05
    0.05328892 = product of:
      0.10657784 = sum of:
        0.10657784 = sum of:
          0.07197544 = weight(_text_:core in 1786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.07197544 = score(doc=1786,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
                5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051078856 = queryNorm
              0.27900314 = fieldWeight in 1786, product of:
                1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                  2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
                0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1786)
          0.0346024 = weight(_text_:22 in 1786) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
            0.0346024 = score(doc=1786,freq=2.0), product of:
              0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
                3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                0.051078856 = queryNorm
              0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1786, 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=1786)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Purpose - One core element of interactive information retrieval (IIR) experiments is the assignment of search tasks. The purpose of this paper is to provide an analytical review of current practice in developing those search tasks to test, observe or control task complexity and difficulty. Design/methodology/approach - Over 100 prior studies of IIR were examined in terms of how each defined task complexity and/or difficulty (or related concepts) and subsequently interpreted those concepts in the development of the assigned search tasks. Findings - Search task complexity is found to include three dimensions: multiplicity of subtasks or steps, multiplicity of facets, and indeterminability. Search task difficulty is based on an interaction between the search task and the attributes of the searcher or the attributes of the search situation. The paper highlights the anomalies in our use of these two concepts, concluding with suggestions for future methodological research related to search task complexity and difficulty. Originality/value - By analyzing and synthesizing current practices, this paper provides guidance for future experiments in IIR that involve these two constructs.
    Date
    6. 4.2015 19:31:22

Authors

Languages

  • e 609
  • d 186
  • a 1
  • hu 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 692
  • el 72
  • m 62
  • s 24
  • x 13
  • r 9
  • b 5
  • i 1
  • n 1
  • z 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications