Search (706 results, page 1 of 36)

0.24554682 = product of:
  0.30693352 = sum of:
    0.19991758 = weight(_text_:list in 300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.19991758 = score(doc=300,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.25191793 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.7935822 = fieldWeight in 300, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=300)
    0.025729544 = weight(_text_:of in 300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025729544 = score(doc=300,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.33856338 = fieldWeight in 300, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=300)
    0.05494872 = weight(_text_:subject in 300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05494872 = score(doc=300,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.31612942 = fieldWeight in 300, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=300)
    0.026337698 = product of:
      0.052675396 = sum of:
        0.052675396 = weight(_text_:22 in 300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.052675396 = score(doc=300,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17018363 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 300, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=300)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.8 = coord(4/5)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper seeks to organize the extensive field and to compile the complete list of information limits. Design/methodology/approach - A thorough analysis of literature from the field beginning with the 1960s up to the present has been performed. Findings - A universal typology of information limits has been proposed. A list of barriers mentioned in the literature of the subject has been compiled. Research limitations/implications - The term "information limits" is not commonly used. Originality/value - The complete list of information limits with bibliographical hints (helpful for future research) is presented.

Date

12. 7.2011 18:22:52

0.09096795 = product of:
  0.15161325 = sum of:
    0.100994654 = weight(_text_:list in 1296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.100994654 = score(doc=1296,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25191793 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.40090302 = fieldWeight in 1296, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1296)
    0.02757311 = weight(_text_:of in 1296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02757311 = score(doc=1296,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 1296, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1296)
    0.023045486 = product of:
      0.04609097 = sum of:
        0.04609097 = weight(_text_:22 in 1296) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04609097 = score(doc=1296,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17018363 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1296, 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=1296)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

I analyze the text of an article that appeared in this journal in 2007 that published the results of a questionnaire in which a number of experts were asked to define the concepts of data, information, and knowledge. I apply standard information retrieval techniques to build a list of the most frequent terms in each set of definitions. I then apply information extraction techniques to analyze how the top terms are used in the definitions. As a result, I draw data-driven conclusions about the aggregate opinion of the experts. I contrast this with the original analysis of the data to provide readers with an alternative viewpoint on what the data tell us.

Date

16. 6.2014 19:22:57

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 65(2014) no.6, S.1279-1287

0.076253325 = product of:
  0.12708887 = sum of:
    0.024912525 = weight(_text_:of in 2340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024912525 = score(doc=2340,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 2340, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2340)
    0.082423076 = weight(_text_:subject in 2340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.082423076 = score(doc=2340,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.4741941 = fieldWeight in 2340, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2340)
    0.019753272 = product of:
      0.039506543 = sum of:
        0.039506543 = weight(_text_:22 in 2340) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.039506543 = score(doc=2340,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17018363 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2340, 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=2340)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

The idea of obtaining subject access to information by being able to visualize an information space, and to navigate through that space toward useful or interesting information, is attractive and plausible. However, this approach to subject access requires additional cognitive processing associated with the interaction of cognitive facilities that deal with concepts and those that deal with space. This additional cognitive processing may cause problems for users, particularly in dealing with the dimensions, the details, and the symbols of information space. Further, it seems likely that different cognitive abilities are associated with conceptual and spatial cognition. As a result, users who deal well with subject access using traditional conceptual approaches may experience difficulty in using visualization and navigation. An experiment designed to investigate the effects of different cognitive abilities on the use of both conceptual and spatial representations of information is outlined

Date

22. 9.1997 19:16:05

Imprint

Urbana-Champaign, IL : Illinois University at Urbana-Champaign, Graduate School of Library and Information Science

Source

Visualizing subject access for 21st century information resources: Papers presented at the 1997 Clinic on Library Applications of Data Processing, 2-4 Mar 1997, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Ed.: P.A. Cochrane et al

0.05658542 = product of:
  0.14146355 = sum of:
    0.011141219 = weight(_text_:of in 6963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.011141219 = score(doc=6963,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.14660224 = fieldWeight in 6963, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6963)
    0.13032232 = weight(_text_:subject in 6963) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13032232 = score(doc=6963,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.7497667 = fieldWeight in 6963, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6963)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Information science has for a long time been drawing on the knowledge produced in psychology and related fields. This is reasonable, for the central issue in information science concerns individual users navigating information spaces such as libraries, databases, and the Internet, Thus, informations seeking is the fundamental problem in information science, while other problems, such as document representation, are subordinate. This book proposes a general theory of information seeking as a theoretical basis for information science

Content

Introduction - information seeking and subject representation - subject searching and subject representation data - subject analysis and knowledge organization - the concept of subject or subject matter and basic epistemological positions - methodological consequences for information science - science, discipline, and subject field as a framework for information seeking - information needs and cognitive and scientific development

LCSH

Subject cataloging

Subject

Subject cataloging

0.051427107 = product of:
  0.12856777 = sum of:
    0.100994654 = weight(_text_:list in 1118) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.100994654 = score(doc=1118,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25191793 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.40090302 = fieldWeight in 1118, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1118)
    0.02757311 = weight(_text_:of in 1118) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02757311 = score(doc=1118,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 1118, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1118)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This article presents a brief history of the term "information" and its different meanings, which are both important and difficult because the different meanings of the term imply whole theories of knowledge. The article further considers the relation between "information" and the concepts "matter and energy", "data", "sign and meaning", "knowledge" and "communication". It presents and analyses the influence of information in information studies and knowledge organization and contains a presentation and critical analysis of some compound terms such as "information need", "information overload" and "information retrieval", which illuminate the use of the term information in information studies. An appendix provides a chronological list of definitions of information.

Series

Reviews of concepts in knowledge organization

0.04818388 = product of:
  0.08030646 = sum of:
    0.028283 = weight(_text_:of in 3077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028283 = score(doc=3077,freq=58.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.37216315 = fieldWeight in 3077, product of:
          7.615773 = tf(freq=58.0), with freq of:
            58.0 = termFreq=58.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3077)
    0.038854614 = weight(_text_:subject in 3077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038854614 = score(doc=3077,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.22353725 = fieldWeight in 3077, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3077)
    0.013168849 = product of:
      0.026337698 = sum of:
        0.026337698 = weight(_text_:22 in 3077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026337698 = score(doc=3077,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17018363 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 3077, 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=3077)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Abstract

The new term Representation of knowledge, applied to the framework of electronic segments of information, with comprehension of new material support for information, and a review and total conceptualisation of the terminology which is being applied, entails a review of all traditional documentary practices. Therefore, a definition of the concept of Representation of knowledge is indispensable. The term representation has been used in westere cultural and intellectual tradition to refer to the diverse ways that a subject comprehends an object. Representation is a process which requires the structure of natural language and human memory whereby it is interwoven in a subject and in conscience. However, at the present time, the term Representation of knowledge is applied to the processing of electronic information, combined with the aim of emulating the human mind in such a way that one has endeavoured to transfer, with great difficulty, the complex structurality of the conceptual representation of human knowledge to new digital information technologies. Thus, nowadays, representation of knowledge has taken an diverse meanings and it has focussed, for the moment, an certain structures and conceptual hierarchies which carry and transfer information, and has initially been based an the current representation of knowledge using artificial intelligence. The traditional languages of documentation, also referred to as languages of representation, offer a structured representation of conceptual fields, symbols and terms of natural and notational language, and they are the pillars for the necessary correspondence between the object or text and its representation. These correspondences, connections and symbolisations will be established within the electronic framework by means of different models and of the "goal" domain, which will give rise to organisations, structures, maps, networks and levels, as new electronic documents are not compact units but segments of information. Thus, the new representation of knowledge refers to data, images, figures and symbolised, treated, processed and structured ideas which replace or refer to documents within the framework of technical processing and the recuperation of electronic information.

Date

2. 1.2005 18:22:25

0.047172483 = product of:
  0.11793121 = sum of:
    0.0270683 = weight(_text_:of in 1069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0270683 = score(doc=1069,freq=34.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.35617945 = fieldWeight in 1069, product of:
          5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
            34.0 = termFreq=34.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1069)
    0.09086291 = weight(_text_:subject in 1069) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.09086291 = score(doc=1069,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.5227499 = fieldWeight in 1069, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1069)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The semiotics of C. S. Peirce presents fundamental concepts to discover aspects of the indexing process, including representation and classes of signs. However, we still know little of its theoretical potential for subject indexing. We believe that the main difficulty in the proposals to understand the process of subject indexing based on Peircean semiotics stems from an incomplete interpretation of his semiotic system. This paper attempts to describe the contributions of Peircean semiotics to subject indexing. First, we analyze some of the concepts of the branches of semiotics, after which, we discuss strategies for conceptual approximation. Secondly, and aiming to raise the level of interlocution between the areas, we intend to argue that subject indexing is an inferential process, as explained by the second branch of semiotics. Thus, we seek to go beyond the level of speculative grammar, the first branch of semiotics, to forge a closer link with pure or critical logic, the second branch. We conclude that the indexer's work does not produce a mere reflection of what already exists in documents, but involves an instigating action to discover, through the inferential matrix, the meaning of a text in order to find the subject and the most a ppropriate subject added entry to the information system.

0.042964067 = product of:
  0.10741016 = sum of:
    0.08656685 = weight(_text_:list in 3836) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.08656685 = score(doc=3836,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25191793 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.34363115 = fieldWeight in 3836, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3836)
    0.020843314 = weight(_text_:of in 3836) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020843314 = score(doc=3836,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 3836, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3836)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Summarizing previous research in areas such as knowledge management, global R&D management, best-practice benchmarking, organizational learning, and international management, this entry presents a list of knowledge sharing mechanisms commonly practiced in organizations, particularly those in large organizations with operations in different locations. Broadly, these mechanisms can be categorized into transfer of people, communities of practice, boundary spanner, best-practice guidelines, process audit and best-practice benchmarking, periodicals, performance reports, and information and communication technology (ICT) tools. The choice of knowledge sharing mechanisms reflects whether an organization chooses to follow codification or personalization strategy, or a combination of both strategies for knowledge management. It is argued that mechanisms with high "reach" are more suitable for creating the awareness of knowledge existence, while mechanism with high "richness" are more appropriate for transferring knowledge, particularly knowledge tacit in nature.

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates

0.04078236 = product of:
  0.067970596 = sum of:
    0.036069524 = weight(_text_:list in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036069524 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.25191793 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.14317966 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.183657 = idf(docFreq=673, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
    0.023670541 = weight(_text_:of in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023670541 = score(doc=2748,freq=104.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
          10.198039 = tf(freq=104.0), with freq of:
            104.0 = termFreq=104.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
    0.008230531 = product of:
      0.016461061 = sum of:
        0.016461061 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016461061 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.17018363 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.6 = coord(3/5)

Content

"This letter considers some main arguments in Professor Bates' article (2008), which is part of our former debate (Bates, 2005,2006; Hjoerland, 2007). Bates (2008) does not write much to restate or enlarge on her theoretical position but is mostly arguing about what she claims Hjorland (2007) ignored or misinterpreted in her two articles. Bates (2008, p. 842) wrote that my arguments did not reflect "a standard of coherence, consistency, and logic that is expected of an argument presented in a scientific journal." My argumentation below will refute this statement. This controversy is whether information should be understood as a subjective phenomenon (alone), as an objective phenomenon (alone), or as a combined objective and a subjective phenomenon ("having it both ways"). Bates (2006) defined "information" (sometimes, e.g., termed "information 1," p. 1042) as an objective phenomenon and "information 2" as a subjective phenomenon. However, sometimes the term "information" is also used as a synonym for "information 2," e.g., "the term information is understood to refer to one or both senses" (p. 1042). Thus, Professor Bates is not consistent in using the terminology that she herself introduces, and confusion in this controversy may be caused by Professor Bates' ambiguity in her use of the term "information." Bates (2006, p. 1033) defined information as an objective phenomenon by joining a definition by Edwin Parker: "Information is the pattern of organization of matter and energy." The argument in Hjoerland (2007) is, by contrast, that information should be understood as a subjective phenomenon all the way down: That neither the objective definition of information nor "having it both ways" is fruitful. This is expressed, for example, by joining Karpatschof's (2000) definition of information as a physical signal relative to a certain release mechanism, which implies that information is not something objective that can be understood independently of an observer or independently of other kinds of mechanism that are programmed to be sensitive to specific attributes of a signal: There are many differences in the world, and each of them is potentially informative in given situations. Regarding Parker's definition, "patterns of organization of matter and energy" are no more than that until they inform somebody about something. When they inform somebody about something, they may be considered information. The following quote is part of the argumentation in Bates (2008): "He contrasts my definition of information as 'observer-independent' with his position that information is 'situational' and adds a list of respected names on the situational side (Hjoerland, 2007, p. 1448). What this sentence, and much of the remainder of his argument, ignores is the fact that my approach accounts for both an observer-independent and a contextual, situational sense of information." Yes, it is correct that I mostly concentrated on refuting Bates' objective definition of information. It is as if Bates expects an overall appraisal of her work rather than providing a specific analysis of the points on which there are disagreements. I see Bates' "having it both ways": a symptom of inconsistence in argumentation.
Bates (2008, p. 843) further writes about her definition of information: "This is the objectivist foundation, the rock bottom minimum of the meaning of information; it informs both articles throughout." This is exactly the focus of my disagreement. If we take a word in a language, it is understood as both being a "pattern of organization of matter and energy" (e.g., a sound) and carrying meaning. But the relation between the physical sign and its meaning is considered an arbitrary relation in linguistics. Any physical material has the potential of carrying any meaning and to inform somebody. The physical stuff in itself is not information until it is used as a sign. An important issue in this debate is whether Bates' examples demonstrate the usefulness of her own position as opposed to mine. Her example about information seeking concerning navigation and how "the very layout of the ship and the design of the bridge promoted the smooth flow of information from the exterior of the ship to the crew and among the crewmembers" (Bates, 2006, pp. 1042-1043) does not justify Bates' definition of information as an objective phenomenon. The design is made for a purpose, and this purpose determines how information should be defined in this context. Bates' view on "curatorial sciences" (2006, p. 1043) is close to Hjorland's suggestions (2000) about "memory institutions," which is based on the subjective understanding of information. However, she does not relate to this proposal, and she does not argue how the objective understanding of information is related to this example. I therefore conclude that Bates' practical examples do not support her objective definition of information, nor do they support her "having it both ways." Finally, I exemplify the consequences of my understanding of information by showing how an archaeologist and a geologist might represent the same stone differently in information systems. Bates (2008, p. 843) writes about this example: "This position is completely consistent with mine." However, this "consistency" was not recognized by Bates until I published my objections and, therefore, this is an indication that my criticism was needed. I certainly share Professor Bates (2008) advice to read her original articles: They contain much important stuff. I just recommend that the reader ignore the parts that argue about information being an objective phenomenon."
References Bates, M.J. (2005). Information and knowledge: An evolutionary framework for information science. Information Research, 10(4), paper 239. Available at http://InformationR.net/ir/10-4/paper239.html. Bates, M.J. (2006). Fundamental forms of information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), 1033-1045. Bates, M.J. (2008). Hjorland's critique of Bates' work on defining information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(5), 842-844. Hjoerland, B. (2000). Documents, memory institutions, and information science. Journal of Documentation, 56, 27-41. Hjoerland, B. (2007). Information: Objective or subjective-situational? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(10), 1448-1456. Karpatschof, B. (2000). Human activity. Contributions to the anthropological sciences from a perspective of activity theory. Copenhagen: Dansk Psykologisk Forlag. Retrieved May 14, 2007, from http://informationr.net/ir/ 12-3/Karpatschof/Karp00.html.

Date

22. 3.2009 18:13:27

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.3, S.643

0.039426763 = product of:
  0.098566905 = sum of:
    0.02177373 = weight(_text_:of in 2027) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02177373 = score(doc=2027,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.28651062 = fieldWeight in 2027, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2027)
    0.07679317 = weight(_text_:subject in 2027) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07679317 = score(doc=2027,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.4418043 = fieldWeight in 2027, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2027)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The primary purpose of this essay if the following: to criticise a discipline-defining concept of information that has its poit of departure in the uncomplicated cognitive metaphor's 'subject/object relationship'. In my understanding, the cognitive channel metaphor is equal to the sender/receiver model, with the addition of the receiver's understanding, as both physical and mental aspects are used in one and the same metaphor: the 'subject' so to speak meets the 'object'. In this essay I will state: (1) that the point at which the 'subject' specifically meets the 'object' does not exist; (2) that the study of that which the non-existing point symbolises is impossible to describe on an general level without becoming trivial; (3) that it is not possible to find an obvious relationship between the sender's statement and the receiver's understanding; and (4) that the study of the 'subject' and the study of the 'object' exist in different methodological and theoretical dimensions: This leads to the conclusion that the cognitive channel metaphorical definition of the discipline of library and information science must preferably be abandoned and that this should take place such: (1) that consideration is taken to the empirical research that is carried out in library and information science and (2) that the research removes itself from the profession's legitimate ambitions for usefulness

0.038227476 = product of:
  0.09556869 = sum of:
    0.02757311 = weight(_text_:of in 6032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02757311 = score(doc=6032,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 6032, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6032)
    0.06799558 = weight(_text_:subject in 6032) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06799558 = score(doc=6032,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.3911902 = fieldWeight in 6032, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6032)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Theories of aboutness and theories of subject analysis and of related concepts such as topicality are often isolated from each other in the literature of information science (IS) and related disciplines. In IS it is important to consider the nature and meaning of these concepts, which is closely related to theoretical and metatheoretical issues in information retrieval (IR). A theory of IR must specify which concepts should be regarded as synonymous concepts and explain how the meaning of the nonsynonymous concepts should be defined

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 52(2001) no.9, S.774-778

0.03455106 = product of:
  0.08637765 = sum of:
    0.018382076 = weight(_text_:of in 310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018382076 = score(doc=310,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.24188137 = fieldWeight in 310, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=310)
    0.06799558 = weight(_text_:subject in 310) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06799558 = score(doc=310,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.3911902 = fieldWeight in 310, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=310)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Recently, a new book on knowledge organization has been published by Greenwood Press. The title is 'Information seeking and subject representation: an activity-theoretical approach to information science'. This book presents a new general theory for information science and knowledge organization, based on a theory of information seeking. The author is Dr. Birger Hjørland, Royal School of Library and Information Science. In 1994, he presented his work on theory for KO at the 3rd International ISKO conference in Copenhagen. The book aims to provide both a new understanding for the foundations of information science and knowledge organization, and to provide new directions in research and teaching within these fields. KO (Hanne Albrechtsen) has interviewed Birger HjÝrland in Copenhagen about his views on knowledge organization and subject representation

0.03360713 = product of:
  0.08401782 = sum of:
    0.06432274 = product of:
      0.19296822 = sum of:
        0.19296822 = weight(_text_:3a in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.19296822 = score(doc=76,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.41201854 = queryWeight, product of:
              8.478011 = idf(docFreq=24, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04859849 = queryNorm
            0.46834838 = fieldWeight in 76, 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=76)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    0.019695079 = weight(_text_:of in 76) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019695079 = score(doc=76,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.25915858 = fieldWeight in 76, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=76)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

A summary of brain theory is given so far as it is contained within the framework of Localization Theory. Difficulties of this "conventional theory" are traced back to a specific deficiency: there is no way to express relations between active cells (as for instance their representing parts of the same object). A new theory is proposed to cure this deficiency. It introduces a new kind of dynamical control, termed synaptic modulation, according to which synapses switch between a conducting and a non- conducting state. The dynamics of this variable is controlled on a fast time scale by correlations in the temporal fine structure of cellular signals. Furthermore, conventional synaptic plasticity is replaced by a refined version. Synaptic modulation and plasticity form the basis for short-term and long-term memory, respectively. Signal correlations, shaped by the variable network, express structure and relationships within objects. In particular, the figure-ground problem may be solved in this way. Synaptic modulation introduces exibility into cerebral networks which is necessary to solve the invariance problem. Since momentarily useless connections are deactivated, interference between di erent memory traces can be reduced, and memory capacity increased, in comparison with conventional associative memory

Content

Originally published July 1981 as Internal Report 81-2, Dept. of Neurobiology, Max-Planck-Institute for Biophysical Chemistry, 3400 Gottingen, W.-Germany.

Source

http%3A%2F%2Fcogprints.org%2F1380%2F1%2FvdM_correlation.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0g7DvZbQPb2U7dYb49b9v_

0.032766405 = product of:
  0.08191601 = sum of:
    0.023634095 = weight(_text_:of in 3775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023634095 = score(doc=3775,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.3109903 = fieldWeight in 3775, product of:
          4.2426405 = tf(freq=18.0), with freq of:
            18.0 = termFreq=18.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3775)
    0.058281917 = weight(_text_:subject in 3775) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058281917 = score(doc=3775,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.33530587 = fieldWeight in 3775, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3775)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Domain analysis (DA) is a metatheoretical framework for Library and Information Science (LIS) suggested by the present author in 1993 and since then further developed. It was then constructed as a response to the cognitive view, which at that time had an overwhelming influence in our field. The basic claim in DA is that "domains" of knowledge, not individual cognitive structures are the proper object of study for LIS. This entry introduces shortly DA in the context of the history of LIS. It considers the relation between ordinary subject knowledge on the one hand and domain knowledge in LIS on the other hand. The information specialists have a specific kind of knowledge about domains that distinguish them from ordinary subject specialists. The entry discusses the concept of a domain and introduces three basic analytical dimensions in the study of domains of knowledge: The ontological dimension, the epistemological dimension, and the sociological dimension. It also considers approaches to DA and the issues on which DA focuses.

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates

0.031597298 = product of:
  0.078993246 = sum of:
    0.03778171 = weight(_text_:of in 3101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03778171 = score(doc=3101,freq=46.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.4971524 = fieldWeight in 3101, product of:
          6.78233 = tf(freq=46.0), with freq of:
            46.0 = termFreq=46.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3101)
    0.041211538 = weight(_text_:subject in 3101) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.041211538 = score(doc=3101,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.23709705 = fieldWeight in 3101, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3101)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Charles S. Peirce had a theory of information largely ignored by contemporary information theorists. This paper gives an outline of this theory and confronts it with information theories since 1949, Shannon and Weaver's syntactic theory of information, Carnap and Bar-Hillel's logico-semantic theory, and Dretske's cognitive-pragmatic theory of information. In contrast to these more recent theories, Peirce's theory of information is not based on a calculus of probabilities but on one of logical quantities. Furthermore, it does not only study information as growth of knowledge from actual texts or utterances but also as knowledge accumulated in symbols in the course of their history. Peirce takes all three dimensions of semiotics into account without reducing information to any of them: syntax, since it calculates information from the combination of subject and predicate terms of propositions; semantics, since it studies the denotation and signification of symbols; and pragmatics insofar as it studies processes of knowledge acquisition. The specifically semiotic aspect of Peirce's information theory consists in its study of the different effects of icons, indices, and symbols on the growth of words, ideas, and knowledge.

0.03103163 = product of:
  0.07757907 = sum of:
    0.019297158 = weight(_text_:of in 304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019297158 = score(doc=304,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.25392252 = fieldWeight in 304, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=304)
    0.058281917 = weight(_text_:subject in 304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.058281917 = score(doc=304,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.33530587 = fieldWeight in 304, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=304)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This article presents a socio-cognitive perspective in relation to information science (IS) and information retrieval (IR). The differences between traditional cognitive views and the socio-cognitive or domain-analytic view are outlined. It is claimed that, given elementary skills in computer-based retrieval, people are basically interacting with representations of subject literatures in IR. The kind of knowledge needed to interact with representations of subject literatures is discussed. It is shown how different approaches or "paradigms" in the represented literature imply different information needs and relevance criteria (which users typically cannot express very well, which is why IS cannot primarily rely on user studies). These principles are exemplified by comparing behaviorism, cognitivism, psychoanalysis, and neuroscience as approaches in psychology. The relevance criteria implicit in each position are outlined, and empirical data are provided to prove the theoretical claims. It is further shown that the most general level of relevance criteria is implied by epistemological theories. The article concludes that the fundamental problems of IS and IR are based in epistemology, which therefore becomes the most important allied field for IS.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 53(2002) no.4, S.257-270

0.030857896 = product of:
  0.07714474 = sum of:
    0.029064612 = weight(_text_:of in 2088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029064612 = score(doc=2088,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.38244802 = fieldWeight in 2088, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2088)
    0.04808013 = weight(_text_:subject in 2088) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04808013 = score(doc=2088,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.27661324 = fieldWeight in 2088, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2088)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

2 studies examined the effect that mental representations derived from maps and verbal descriptions have on the recall of facts from a text. In experiment 1, subjects studies a map of Tasmania, a control map of Ceylon, or comparable verbal descriptions and then listened to a text containing facts about Tasmania. Fact recall was higher and map drawings were more accurate for the group that studied the Tasmania map. In experiment 2, subject studied a map of Tasmania, or one of two verbal descriptions (using different sequences of landmarks) of Tasmania. The results replicated those of experiment 1. These findings suggest that there may be fundamental differences between visual and verbal representations of the same space

0.030382723 = product of:
  0.07595681 = sum of:
    0.021008085 = weight(_text_:of in 1644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021008085 = score(doc=1644,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 1644, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1644)
    0.05494872 = weight(_text_:subject in 1644) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05494872 = score(doc=1644,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.31612942 = fieldWeight in 1644, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1644)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Presents evidence to suggest that the online world needs the bibliographic skills of librarians but that the term bibliographic control is likely to be associated specifically with libraries and liable to misinterpretation. Suggests that it may be time to start talking about information organization which may be described as having the following 4 aspects: making new information bearing entities known; acquiring such entities at certain points of accumulation; providing name, title and subject access to the entities; and providing for the physical location of copies. Urges librarians rapidly to adapt their skills to this increasing need for information organization

0.030382723 = product of:
  0.07595681 = sum of:
    0.021008085 = weight(_text_:of in 4712) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021008085 = score(doc=4712,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 4712, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4712)
    0.05494872 = weight(_text_:subject in 4712) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05494872 = score(doc=4712,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.31612942 = fieldWeight in 4712, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4712)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Colours, icons, graphics, hypertext links and other multimedia elements are variables that affect information search strategies and information seeking behaviour. These variables are culturally constructed and represented and are subject to individual and community interpretation. Hypothesizes that users in different communities (in intercultural or multicultural context) will interpret differently the meanings of the multimedia objects on the Internet. Users' interpretations of multimedia objects may differ from the intentions of the designers. A study in this area is being undertaken

0.030382723 = product of:
  0.07595681 = sum of:
    0.021008085 = weight(_text_:of in 277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.021008085 = score(doc=277,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07599624 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 277, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=277)
    0.05494872 = weight(_text_:subject in 277) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05494872 = score(doc=277,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17381717 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04859849 = queryNorm
        0.31612942 = fieldWeight in 277, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.576596 = idf(docFreq=3361, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=277)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

Analyses the elements which make up the term 'information' so that a systematic strategy for defining 'information' can be arrived at and applied by those professionals engaged in providing information about sources of information, subject classification and indexing, and abstracting. Discusses the processes of communication ('self-communication' and communication with others) and their relationship with knowledge; knowing, remembering and learning; organizations and association; the role of language in communication; information, knowledge and data; and the distinction between the medium of expression and the actual message conveyed