Search (18 results, page 1 of 1)

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

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

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

0.042631138 = product of:
  0.085262276 = sum of:
    0.085262276 = sum of:
      0.057580356 = weight(_text_:core in 770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.057580356 = score(doc=770,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = queryNorm
          0.22320253 = fieldWeight in 770, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
            0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=770)
      0.02768192 = weight(_text_:22 in 770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.02768192 = score(doc=770,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.051078856 = 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)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of the research reported here is to improve comprehension of the socially-negotiated identity of concepts in the domain of knowledge organization. Because knowledge organization as a domain has as its focus the order of concepts, both from a theoretical perspective and from an applied perspective, it is important to understand how the domain itself understands the meaning of a concept. Design/methodology/approach - The paper provides an empirical demonstration of how the domain itself understands the meaning of a concept. The paper employs content analysis to demonstrate the ways in which concepts are portrayed in KO concept maps as signs, and they are subjected to evaluative semiotic analysis as a way to understand their meaning. The frame was the entire population of formal proceedings in knowledge organization - all proceedings of the International Society for Knowledge Organization's international conferences (1990-2010) and those of the annual classification workshops of the Special Interest Group for Classification Research of the American Society for Information Science and Technology (SIG/CR). Findings - A total of 344 concept maps were analyzed. There was no discernible chronological pattern. Most concept maps were created by authors who were professors from the USA, Germany, France, or Canada. Roughly half were judged to contain semiotic content. Peirceian semiotics predominated, and tended to convey greater granularity and complexity in conceptual terminology. Nodes could be identified as anchors of conceptual clusters in the domain; the arcs were identifiable as verbal relationship indicators. Saussurian concept maps were more applied than theoretical; Peirceian concept maps had more theoretical content. Originality/value - The paper demonstrates important empirical evidence about the coherence of the domain of knowledge organization. Core values are conveyed across time through the concept maps in this population of conference papers.

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.

0.030536594 = product of:
  0.061073188 = sum of:
    0.061073188 = product of:
      0.122146375 = sum of:
        0.122146375 = weight(_text_:core in 4162) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.122146375 = score(doc=4162,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = queryNorm
            0.47348404 = fieldWeight in 4162, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4162)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The cataloging and classification community was called to highlight 2010 as "The Year of Cataloging Research," and specifically was challenged to generate research ideas, conduct research, and generally promote the development of new research in cataloging. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly has become the most influential journal of research in cataloging and classification since its inception in 1981. The idea behind the research reported here was to give the CCQ editorial board an opportunity to present its point of view about research for cataloging. A Delphi study was conducted in three stages during the 2009-2010 academic year. Members were asked to define the key terms "cataloging," "evidence," and "research," and to develop a research agenda in cataloging. The results reveal a basic core definition of cataloging perceived as a dynamic, active process at the core of information retrieval. An eight point research agenda emerges that is forward-looking and embraces change, along with top-ranked calls for new empirical evidence about catalogs, cataloging, and catalog users.

0.025447162 = product of:
  0.050894324 = sum of:
    0.050894324 = product of:
      0.10178865 = sum of:
        0.10178865 = weight(_text_:core in 4528) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10178865 = score(doc=4528,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = queryNorm
            0.39457005 = fieldWeight in 4528, 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=4528)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Fifteenth International ISKO Conference (ISKO 15) took place in Porto, Portugal in early July 2018 at the Faculty of Arts and Humanities of the University of Porto, Department of Communication and Information Sciences. The main theme was "challenges and opportunities for knowledge organization in the digital age;" three sub-themes were: foundations and methods, interoperability and societal challenges. A feature of the conference was a special session devoted to the memory of ISKO founder Ingetraut Dahlberg. The proceedings contain 105 formal research papers as well as abstracts for fourteen posters and two workshops. Informetric analyses produce a characteristic picture for an international ISKO conference, with core concepts of KO and KOSs embracing digital age concepts of social media and the semantic web alongside new library conceptual data models. On ISKO 15's bookshelf were articles by Hjørland, Dahlberg, Tennis and Beghtol, and books by Ranganathan and Szostak, Gnoli and López-Huertas. But also books by Adler, García Gutiérrez, Holland and Verborgh and FRBR/LRM were present as were articles by Adler, Kleineberg and Gruber. Core ISKO is joined on this bookshelf by new articles from the ISKO Encyclopedia, by works pointing toward ethical approaches to KO, and by works pointing toward KO for a semantic web-challenges and opportunities for KO, as the conference theme indicated.

0.021816399 = product of:
  0.043632798 = sum of:
    0.043632798 = product of:
      0.087265596 = sum of:
        0.087265596 = weight(_text_:core in 4555) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.087265596 = score(doc=4555,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = queryNorm
            0.33827338 = fieldWeight in 4555, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=4555)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

As we all know, Knowledge Organization (KO) is a pretty broad domain. Although the concept-theoretic approach to classification is at the core along with several other important pieces of what we call classification theory, both the intension and the extension of the domain are represented by broad trajectories. Arguably, the biennial conferences represent way stations within the matrix of the domain-points in time when we pause to take stock of our current research. Also, because each conference is hosted and planned by a regional chapter, each then reflects peculiar parameters of the intersections of intensional and extensional trajectories. Perhaps because the domain of knowledge itself is so immense, so also is our corporate attempt to grapple with the theoretical and applied aspects of its organization. Furthermore, because of the breadth of our domain, many possibilities exist for its representation, depending on the constitution of the research front (or fronts) at any moment in time. That is, research in the domain stretches in all directions from its solid theoretical core down many much more granular roadways. Thus by analyzing the activity and contents of these metaphorical way stations-that is, by bring the tools of domain analysis to bear on our own biennial conferences-we are able to visualize the moment in time represented by the accumulated scholarship generated by each conference. 2010's 11th International ISKO Conference in Rome offered the latest opportunity for analysis on a broad scale.
To take advantage of the wonderful Italian weather, ISKO's 2010 conference was moved from the usual August to February; the venue was the Sapienza University (officially Sapienza - Università di Roma) and the conference took place 23-26 February 2010. The conference was organized and hosted by ISKO Italy and the Faculty of Philosophy of Sapienza University. Each morning as attendees arrived, we were treated to the garden pictured in Figure 1, and especially interesting was the fountain and the statue of St. Francis. Of course, the mystery was the turtle at St. Francis' foot, which looks quite like part of the statue but turned out to be real. The peaceful gardens were just a hallmark of the contemplative nature of the conference. Officially the 11th International ISKO Conference, the theme was "Paradigms and Conceptual Systems in Knowledge Organization." The proceedings and the conference program together listed 65 presentations, of which 64 were actually presented and 61 had papers included in the proceedings (or, 4 papers were presented but not included in the proceedings, and 1 paper included in the proceedings was not presented). Although space is insufficient for a full analysis, following from my editorial following ISKO 10 (Smiraglia 2008), I will use this space to paint a brief bibliometric portrait of the domain at the core of this conference. Data for this analysis come from the PDF of the proceedings; all citations for all papers were pasted in an Excel spreadsheet, where the citations were variously delimited for the following analyses. The original file is available on my blog: http://lazykoblog.wordpress.com/.

0.021592634 = product of:
  0.043185268 = sum of:
    0.043185268 = product of:
      0.086370535 = sum of:
        0.086370535 = weight(_text_:core in 819) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.086370535 = score(doc=819,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = queryNorm
            0.3348038 = fieldWeight in 819, 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=819)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

In KO there is work to solidify concept theory, which is at the core of our discipline; but there are other dimensions, as well as suggestions that classification must engage a multi-verse. This paper encompasses a domain analysis of KO as a means of visualizing the emergence and coherence of our domain, and as a way of denominating the parameters of the universe (or universes) in which our domain operates, as well as the dimensions of the operational paradigms at work. In other words, we look here at the extension and intension of KO as a domain. KO as a domain demonstrates coherence across time and across geopolitical boundaries, particularly as it concerns its theoretical foundations. Consistently marked dimensions within the domain: theoretical versus applied on one continuum, humanistic versus scientific on another. These dimensions serve to maintain constructive and dynamic tension within the domain, which in turn keeps the research front constantly in a state of renewal.

0.021592634 = product of:
  0.043185268 = sum of:
    0.043185268 = product of:
      0.086370535 = sum of:
        0.086370535 = weight(_text_:core in 1575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.086370535 = score(doc=1575,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = queryNorm
            0.3348038 = fieldWeight in 1575, 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=1575)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to enhance cultural heritage data curation. A core research question of this study is how to share cultural heritage data by using ontologies. A case study was conducted using open government data mapped with the CIDOC-CRM (Conceptual Reference Model). Twelve library-related files in unstructured data format were collected from an open government website, Seoul Metropolitan Government of Korea (http://data.seoul.go.kr). By using the ontologies of the CIDOC CRM 5.1.2, we conducted a mapping process as a way of enhancing cultural heritage information to share information as a data component. We graphed each file then mapped each file in tables. Implications of this study are both the enhanced discoverability of unstructured data and the reusability of mapped information. Issues emerging from this study involve verification of detail for complete compatibility without further input from domain experts.

0.02035773 = product of:
  0.04071546 = sum of:
    0.04071546 = product of:
      0.08143092 = sum of:
        0.08143092 = weight(_text_:core in 6087) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08143092 = score(doc=6087,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = queryNorm
            0.31565604 = fieldWeight in 6087, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=6087)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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.

0.02035773 = product of:
  0.04071546 = sum of:
    0.04071546 = product of:
      0.08143092 = sum of:
        0.08143092 = weight(_text_:core in 4546) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.08143092 = score(doc=4546,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = queryNorm
            0.31565604 = fieldWeight in 4546, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4546)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Knowledge Organization (KO) as a domain is evolving rapidly and its boundaries are being pushed amoeba-like in every direction as a consequence. All that readers of this journal need to do to find evidence of this evolution is to look at the journal itself, which moves from quarterly to bi-monthly with this issue. While the peer-review system serves a gate-keeping function on the intension of the domain, making certain that articles appearing in this journal align with accepted conceptual tenets, the system simultaneously serves a different function (perhaps we can align it with the opening of gates) for KO conferences, where it is the extension of the domain that is constantly being probed and tested by new research. Gate-keeping is an important function for any domain, which is why peer review is a hallmark of ISKO's regional and international conferences as well as this journal. So it is even more impressive to consider these two functions together, which at once serve to intensify the core concepts of knowledge organization and simultaneously to stretch their application into new corners of the knowledge domain. It is a sort of inspiration-expiration dichotomous action, solidifying the core on the intake and pushing the boundaries (or axes, as Tennis (2003) has called them) on the outgo. Indeed, the new "Forum: Philosophy of Classification," and occasional feature beginning with this issue, which has been generated by Birger Hjørland, chair of ISKO's newly active Scientific Advisory Council, is an example of this dichotomous action. For further examples we can turn to the contents of regional and international KO conferences, which provide interesting temporal glimpses of this evolutionary process. In this editorial I will present a summary analysis of the August 2007 Mexico City conference "I Simposio Internacional sobre Organizacion del Conocimiento, Bibliotecologia y Terminologia," whose proceedings were just available in print in 2009.

0.01799386 = product of:
  0.03598772 = sum of:
    0.03598772 = product of:
      0.07197544 = sum of:
        0.07197544 = weight(_text_:core in 3663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07197544 = score(doc=3663,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = queryNorm
            0.27900314 = fieldWeight in 3663, 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=3663)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

To contribute to the development of a sophisticated control of bibliographic works research must be build on the growing understanding of the nature of the work and the constitution of bibliographic families. The present study was designed to address the following in the context of a global bibliographic database: OCLC's WorldCat: the proportion of works that are members of bibliographic families; the size of each family; bibliographic characteristics that can be associated with the existence or extent of derivative bibliographic relationships; the frequency with which each type of relationship appears; and the complexity of bibliographic families. A sample of bibliographic families was constructed. Results indicate that a core of works of similar character constitute the bibliographic population of American academic and research libraries (OCLC members). It seems that the canon of derivative works is greater in the academic sphere than in the bibliographic universe represented by OCLC at large. The size of a bibliographic family seems to be related to its popularity or its canonicity. Discipline, form, and genre all fail to demonstrate any influence on derivation of works. Further study of specific segments of the bibliographic universe, for instance the literature of particular disciplines, is clearly called for. The purpose of this research is to contribute to the development of a sophisticated control of bibliographic works and families. In particular, this research is designed to build on our growing understanding of the nature of the work and the constitution of bibliographic families

0.014395089 = product of:
  0.028790178 = sum of:
    0.028790178 = product of:
      0.057580356 = sum of:
        0.057580356 = weight(_text_:core in 2772) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057580356 = score(doc=2772,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = queryNorm
            0.22320253 = fieldWeight in 2772, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2772)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Works are key entities in the universe of recorded knowledge. Works are those deliberate creations (known variously as opera, oeuvres, Werke, etc.) that stand as the formal records of knowledge. Core bodies of works-canons-function to preserve and disseminate the parameters of a culture. There is some evidence that popularity of works is a contributing factor to the phenomena of mutation and derivation. In particular, novels demonstrated the high incidence of both derivation and mutation of a popular literary work. Commercial interests combine with cultural forces to propel the evolution of popular novels as interest in them spreads across language and geographic boundaries. Earlier studies support a concept of the work as a collaborative entity that is changed over time by those who embrace it. The more popular the work, the more likely we will observe change over time. Cultural boundaries are crossed by the mutation of best-selling works, as their translations find collaborative roles in cultures different from that in which the work originated. The study of works that have appeared an best-seller lists (one measure of cultural embrace, or "popularity") might yield useful data for comprehension of the content and extent of the canon of popular works. In the present study, a sample of best-selling works (fiction and non-fiction) from 1900-1999 is examined. Preliminary evidence from the first phase of this study demonstrates the consistency of the theoretical functioning of works as cultural entities. That is, works that enter a canon derive and mutate dramatically, while those that do not remain unchanged. "Popularity" is not demonstrated as equated with "bestselling," but all best-selling books in the sample generated more than one edition.

0.014395089 = product of:
  0.028790178 = sum of:
    0.028790178 = product of:
      0.057580356 = sum of:
        0.057580356 = weight(_text_:core in 1513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057580356 = score(doc=1513,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.25797358 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = queryNorm
            0.22320253 = fieldWeight in 1513, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.0504966 = idf(docFreq=769, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1513)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

The Elements of Knowledge Organization is a unique and original work introducing the fundamental concepts related to the field of Knowledge Organization (KO). There is no other book like it currently available. The author begins the book with a comprehensive discussion of "knowledge" and its associated theories. He then presents a thorough discussion of the philosophical underpinnings of knowledge organization. The author walks the reader through the Knowledge Organization domain expanding the core topics of ontologies, taxonomies, classification, metadata, thesauri and domain analysis. The author also presents the compelling challenges associated with the organization of knowledge. This is the first book focused on the concepts and theories associated with KO domain. Prior to this book, individuals wishing to study Knowledge Organization in its broadest sense would generally collocate their own resources, navigating the various methods and models and perhaps inadvertently excluding relevant materials. This text cohesively links key and related KO material and provides a deeper understanding of the domain in its broadest sense and with enough detail to truly investigate its many facets. This book will be useful to both graduate and undergraduate students in the computer science and information science domains both as a text and as a reference book. It will also be valuable to researchers and practitioners in the industry who are working on website development, database administration, data mining, data warehousing and data for search engines. The book is also beneficial to anyone interested in the concepts and theories associated with the organization of knowledge. Dr. Richard P. Smiraglia is a world-renowned author who is well published in the Knowledge Organization domain. Dr. Smiraglia is editor-in-chief of the journal Knowledge Organization, published by Ergon-Verlag of Würzburg. He is a professor and member of the Information Organization Research Group at the School of Information Studies at University of Wisconsin Milwaukee.

0.01038072 = product of:
  0.02076144 = sum of:
    0.02076144 = product of:
      0.04152288 = sum of:
        0.04152288 = weight(_text_:22 in 1420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04152288 = score(doc=1420,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.0086506 = product of:
  0.0173012 = sum of:
    0.0173012 = product of:
      0.0346024 = sum of:
        0.0346024 = weight(_text_:22 in 107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0346024 = score(doc=107,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.0086506 = product of:
  0.0173012 = sum of:
    0.0173012 = product of:
      0.0346024 = sum of:
        0.0346024 = weight(_text_:22 in 1412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0346024 = score(doc=1412,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

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

0.0043253 = product of:
  0.0086506 = sum of:
    0.0086506 = product of:
      0.0173012 = sum of:
        0.0173012 = weight(_text_:22 in 1919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0173012 = score(doc=1919,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17886946 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.051078856 = 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)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

12. 6.2008 20:18:22