Search (29 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × author_ss:"Dahlberg, I."
  1. De Luca, E.W.; Dahlberg, I.: Including knowledge domains from the ICC into the multilingual lexical linked data cloud (2014) 0.03
    0.033718906 = product of:
      0.050578356 = sum of:
        0.026672786 = weight(_text_:on in 1493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026672786 = score(doc=1493,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.24300331 = fieldWeight in 1493, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1493)
        0.023905568 = product of:
          0.047811136 = sum of:
            0.047811136 = weight(_text_:22 in 1493) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.047811136 = score(doc=1493,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04990557 = queryNorm
                0.27358043 = fieldWeight in 1493, 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=1493)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
    
    Abstract
    A lot of information that is already available on the Web, or retrieved from local information systems and social networks is structured in data silos that are not semantically related. Semantic technologies make it emerge that the use of typed links that directly express their relations are an advantage for every application that can reuse the incorporated knowledge about the data. For this reason, data integration, through reengineering (e.g. triplify), or querying (e.g. D2R) is an important task in order to make information available for everyone. Thus, in order to build a semantic map of the data, we need knowledge about data items itself and the relation between heterogeneous data items. In this paper, we present our work of providing Lexical Linked Data (LLD) through a meta-model that contains all the resources and gives the possibility to retrieve and navigate them from different perspectives. We combine the existing work done on knowledge domains (based on the Information Coding Classification) within the Multilingual Lexical Linked Data Cloud (based on the RDF/OWL EurowordNet and the related integrated lexical resources (MultiWordNet, EuroWordNet, MEMODATA Lexicon, Hamburg Methaphor DB).
    Date
    22. 9.2014 19:01:18
    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. Dahlberg, I.: Toward establishment of compatibility between indexing languages (1981) 0.03
    0.028601333 = product of:
      0.085804 = sum of:
        0.085804 = product of:
          0.171608 = sum of:
            0.171608 = weight(_text_:demand in 5218) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.171608 = score(doc=5218,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.31127608 = queryWeight, product of:
                  6.237302 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04990557 = queryNorm
                0.5513048 = fieldWeight in 5218, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  6.237302 = idf(docFreq=234, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5218)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Outlines previous work done in the field of compatibility between indexing langugaes (IL), and describes the scope, limitations and advantages of establishing compatibility between IL. Suggests methods for verbal comparisons between IL as well as generation of an alphabetical comparison matrix M1. Conceptual comparisons, however, demand a conceptual reorganization of M1 into a compatibiliy matrix M2 with its two alternatices, namely a system-related matrix M3 and a hierarchical matrix M4. In conclusion, the use of a compatibility matrix and organizational problems are described
  3. Dahlberg, I.: Normung und Klassifikation (1978) 0.02
    0.022538386 = product of:
      0.06761516 = sum of:
        0.06761516 = product of:
          0.13523032 = sum of:
            0.13523032 = weight(_text_:22 in 1612) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.13523032 = score(doc=1612,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04990557 = queryNorm
                0.77380234 = fieldWeight in 1612, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=1612)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Source
    DK-Mitteilungen. 22(1978) Nr.5/6, S.13-18
  4. Dahlberg, I.: Kolloquium Einheitsklassifikation (1975) 0.02
    0.022538386 = product of:
      0.06761516 = sum of:
        0.06761516 = product of:
          0.13523032 = sum of:
            0.13523032 = weight(_text_:22 in 1625) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.13523032 = score(doc=1625,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04990557 = queryNorm
                0.77380234 = fieldWeight in 1625, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=1625)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Source
    Nachrichten für Dokumentation. 26(1975), S.22-25
  5. Dahlberg, I.: Conceptual definitions for INTERCONCEPT (1981) 0.02
    0.022538386 = product of:
      0.06761516 = sum of:
        0.06761516 = product of:
          0.13523032 = sum of:
            0.13523032 = weight(_text_:22 in 1630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.13523032 = score(doc=1630,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04990557 = queryNorm
                0.77380234 = fieldWeight in 1630, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.15625 = fieldNorm(doc=1630)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Source
    International classification. 8(1981), S.16-22
  6. Dahlberg, I.: ¬Die gegenstandsbezogene, analytische Begriffstheorie und ihre Definitionsarten (1987) 0.02
    0.01577687 = product of:
      0.04733061 = sum of:
        0.04733061 = product of:
          0.09466122 = sum of:
            0.09466122 = weight(_text_:22 in 880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.09466122 = score(doc=880,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04990557 = queryNorm
                0.5416616 = fieldWeight in 880, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=880)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Pages
    S.9-22
  7. Dahlberg, I.: On the theory of the concept (1979) 0.02
    0.015088407 = product of:
      0.04526522 = sum of:
        0.04526522 = weight(_text_:on in 1615) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04526522 = score(doc=1615,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.4123903 = fieldWeight in 1615, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1615)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Source
    Ordering systems for global information networks. Proc. of the 3rd Int. Study Conf. on Classification Research, Bombay 1975
  8. Dahlberg, I.: Grundlagen universaler Wissensordnung : Probleme und Möglichkeiten eines universalen Klassifikationssystems des Wissens (1974) 0.01
    0.011269193 = product of:
      0.03380758 = sum of:
        0.03380758 = product of:
          0.06761516 = sum of:
            0.06761516 = weight(_text_:22 in 127) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.06761516 = score(doc=127,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04990557 = queryNorm
                0.38690117 = fieldWeight in 127, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=127)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Footnote
    Zugleich Dissertation Univ. Düsseldorf. - Rez. in: ZfBB. 22(1975) S.53-57 (H.-A. Koch)
  9. Dahlberg, I.: DIN 32705: the German standard on classification systems : a critical appraisal (1992) 0.01
    0.010669115 = product of:
      0.032007344 = sum of:
        0.032007344 = weight(_text_:on in 2669) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.032007344 = score(doc=2669,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.29160398 = fieldWeight in 2669, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2669)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    The German standard on the construction and further development of classification systems is introduced with its background. The contents of its 8 chapters is described. A critical appraisal considers (1) the fact that the standard does not openly deal with the optimal form of CS, viz. faceted CS, but treats them as one possibility among others, although the authors seem to have had this kind in mind when recommending the section on steps of CS development and other sections of the standard; (2) that the standard does not give any recommendation on the computerization of the necessary activities in establishing CS; and (3) that a convergence of CS and thesauri in the form of faceted CS and faceted thesauri has not been taken into consideration. - Concludingly some doubts are raised whether a standard would be the best medium to provide recommendations or guidelines for the construction of such systems. More adequate ways for this should be explored
  10. Dahlberg, I.: Towards a future for knowledge organization (2006) 0.01
    0.010058938 = product of:
      0.030176813 = sum of:
        0.030176813 = weight(_text_:on in 1476) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030176813 = score(doc=1476,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.27492687 = fieldWeight in 1476, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1476)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Discusses the origin and evolution of the Information Coding Classification (ICC); its theoretical basis, and structure and advantageous attributes for organizing knowledge. Pleads that the considerable work already done on the system should be taken up and developed by interested research groups through collaborative effort. Concludes with some thoughts on the future of knowledge organization for information retrieval and other applications
  11. Dahlberg, I.: Zur Theorie des Begriffs (1974) 0.01
    0.009239726 = product of:
      0.027719175 = sum of:
        0.027719175 = weight(_text_:on in 1617) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.027719175 = score(doc=1617,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.25253648 = fieldWeight in 1617, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1617)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    A concept is regarded as the common element of both classification systems and thesauri. Reality and knowledge are not represented by words or terms but by the meanings "behind" these tokens. A concept of, say, an object, a property of an object, a process, etc. is derived from verbal statements on these as subjects and may therefore be defined as the whole of true and possible predicates that can be collected on a given subject. It is from these predicates that the characteristics of the corresponding concepts can be derived. Common characteristics in different concepts lead to relationsbetween concepts, which relations in turn are factors for the formation of concept systems. Different kinds of relationships as well as different kinds of concepts are distinguished. It is pointed out that an orderly supply of the elements for propositions (informative statements) on new knowledge requires the construction and availability of such concept systems
  12. Dahlberg, I.: Begriffsarbeit in der Wissensorganisation (2010) 0.01
    0.009015355 = product of:
      0.027046064 = sum of:
        0.027046064 = product of:
          0.054092128 = sum of:
            0.054092128 = weight(_text_:22 in 3726) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.054092128 = score(doc=3726,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04990557 = queryNorm
                0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 3726, 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=3726)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    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
  13. Dahlberg, I.: Knowledge organization : a new science? (2006) 0.01
    0.008801571 = product of:
      0.026404712 = sum of:
        0.026404712 = weight(_text_:on in 3375) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026404712 = score(doc=3375,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.24056101 = fieldWeight in 3375, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3375)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    In ISKO's name, the term "Knowledge Organization" (KO) denotes already the object and the activity area significant for the existence of any science. Both areas are outlined and their specific contents shown. Also a survey of its special subfields is given. The sciencetheoretical foundation of Knowledge Organization as a new scientific discipline is based on the propositional concept of science. Within a universal system of the sciences, KO has been regarded as a subfield of Science of Science. Concludingly it is proposed to find the necessary institution for work in concerted effort of scientists, knowledge organizers and terminologists on the collection, definition, and systematization of concepts of all subject fields, utilizing the Information Coding Classification (ICC) as the necessary categorizing structure.
  14. Dahlberg, I.: Kompatibilität und Integration : Probleme und Lösungen in der Wissensorganisation (2008) 0.01
    0.0076997704 = product of:
      0.02309931 = sum of:
        0.02309931 = weight(_text_:on in 1677) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02309931 = score(doc=1677,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 1677, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1677)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    The trend in the fifties and sixties of the past century away from the use of universal classification systems such as the UDC towards establishing thesauri in special subject fields for the description of the conceptual contents of documents lead documentalists soon to realize that the necessary common tool for a collaboration among centers of similar subject fields was lacking. Therefore compatibility and integration studies began between the different thesauri of such fields, leading often to more comprehensive thesauri, such as macrothesauri. The paper describes this historic development and also the solutions found at the 1995 ISKO-Conference in Warsaw/Poland on Compatibility and Integration as given in its papers, its recommendations and also in the conceptual frame of its comprehensive bibliography on this topic. In conclusion a new solution is presented oriented toward combining the use of a universal classification system with the new developments of ontologies and their problem of interoperability and heterogeneity.
    Content
    Enthält im Anhang (S.48-49) die: "Recommendations of the Research Seminar on Compatibility and Integration of Order Systems organized by the International Society fpr Knowledge Organization (ISKO) and the Society for Professional Information (TIP), Warsaw, Poland, September 13-15, 1995".
  15. Dahlberg, I.: ¬The Information Coding Classification (ICC) : a modern, theory-based fully-faceted, universal system of knowledge fields (2008) 0.01
    0.0076997704 = product of:
      0.02309931 = sum of:
        0.02309931 = weight(_text_:on in 1854) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02309931 = score(doc=1854,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.21044704 = fieldWeight in 1854, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1854)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Introduction into the structure, contents and specifications (especially the Systematifier) of the Information Coding Classification, developed in the seventies and used in many ways by the author and a few others following its publication in 1982. Its theoretical basis is explained consisting in (1) the Integrative Level Theory, following an evolutionary approach of ontical areas, and integrating also on each level the aspects contained in the sequence of the levels, (2) the distinction between categories of form and categories of being, (3) the application of a feature of Systems Theory (namely the element position plan) and (4) the inclusion of a concept theory, distinguishing four kinds of relationships, originated by the kinds of characteristics (which are the elements of concepts to be derived from the statements on the properties of referents of concepts). Its special Subject Groups on each of its nine levels are outlined and the combinatory facilities at certain positions of the Systematifier are shown. Further elaboration and use have been suggested, be it only as a switching language between the six existing universal classification systems at present in use internationally.
  16. Dahlberg, I.: ¬The terminology of subject-fields (1975) 0.01
    0.0075442037 = product of:
      0.02263261 = sum of:
        0.02263261 = weight(_text_:on in 2103) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02263261 = score(doc=2103,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.20619515 = fieldWeight in 2103, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2103)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    So far terminological work has been mainly directed towards defining very special concepts. The more general ones, e.g. those denoting subject-fields have been neglected with the result that communication on this level has been seriously hampered. There exists a great number of such terms and also a growing trend for the formation of new ones. In the FRG an R&D project was started in 1972 with the collection of names of subject fields, it is intended to assemble their definitions in a dictionary and to build a general concept system by computercomparison of their characteristics as provided by their definitions. The nature of subject-fields is explained, details on the German collection are given as well as some results from a formal analysis of their concepts. It is proposed to initiate similar projects in other linguistic regions as well; this could be done under the auspices of Infoterm. Some application-possibilities for a general concept-system (e. g. a broad system of ordering) are given. The annex displays a scheme of 9 subject areas and about 90 subareas for the sorting of names of subject fields
  17. Dahlberg, I.: Knowledge organization : its scope and possibilities (1993) 0.01
    0.007112743 = product of:
      0.021338228 = sum of:
        0.021338228 = weight(_text_:on in 6315) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021338228 = score(doc=6315,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 6315, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6315)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    Sketch of historical development of knowledge organization and presentation of its scope as shown by the contents of the literature service, now called 'Knowledge Organization Literature'. The scheme is explained and shown on its three levels as well as its correlation to a universal classification system of knowledge fields, the 'Information Coding Classification'. The possibilities of Knowledge Organization as a help for everybody, especially also students and above all students of education, and a help for political, industrial and social leaders are discussed. 10 measures for consideration and activation are listed
  18. Dahlberg, I.: Conceptual structures and systematization (1995) 0.01
    0.007112743 = product of:
      0.021338228 = sum of:
        0.021338228 = weight(_text_:on in 3965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021338228 = score(doc=3965,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.19440265 = fieldWeight in 3965, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3965)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Source
    International forum on information and documentation. 20(1995) no.3, S.9-24
  19. Luca, E.W. de; Dahlberg, I.: ¬Die Multilingual Lexical Linked Data Cloud : eine mögliche Zugangsoptimierung? (2014) 0.01
    0.0067615155 = product of:
      0.020284547 = sum of:
        0.020284547 = product of:
          0.040569093 = sum of:
            0.040569093 = weight(_text_:22 in 1736) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.040569093 = score(doc=1736,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.1747608 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.04990557 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1736, 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=1736)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Date
    22. 9.2014 19:00:13
  20. Dahlberg, I.: How to improve ISKO's standing : ten desiderata for knowledge organization (2011) 0.01
    0.0062868367 = product of:
      0.01886051 = sum of:
        0.01886051 = weight(_text_:on in 4300) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01886051 = score(doc=4300,freq=16.0), product of:
            0.109763056 = queryWeight, product of:
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04990557 = queryNorm
            0.1718293 = fieldWeight in 4300, product of:
              4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
                16.0 = termFreq=16.0
              2.199415 = idf(docFreq=13325, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4300)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
    
    Abstract
    In 2009 ISKO had its 20th anniversary, a time for review and reflection on what might be envisaged to further Knowledge Organization in the forthcoming years. In addition to some proposals set forth at the end of this contribution, ten desiderata appear urgent. A preliminary condition to any other consideration is the recognition of the fundamental difference in the organization of knowledge between the concept (i.e., the unit of knowledge)-the conceptual level-and the word, term or code-the verbal level-and the need for implementing this distinction in theory and practice (Desideratum 1). On this basis, some further proposals are enunciated. The 2nd proposition concerns the surveying of extant classification systems, thesauri, and other means of organizing, ordering, and indexing knowledge; the 3rd proposition envisages the improvement of expert training in Knowledge Organization (KO), also with regard to curricula and professional acknowledgment. Nr.4) refers to the professionalization of the hitherto rather neglected national ISKO secretariats, as well as the international ISKO secretariat. Nr.5) urges a systematic survey of KO-relevant concepts to serve as a model or standard for other subject fields, Nr.6) claims the establishment of KO Institutes, Nr.7) views consultancy to the effect that anybody interested in KO may approach ISKO for help, Nr 8) urges ISKO's promotion of membership and chapters in as many countries as possible, Nr.9) presses for intensification of ISKO's publication activities, and Nr.10) pleads for KO as a scientific discipline on its own.
    Content
    6. Establishment of national Knowledge Organization Institutes should be scheduled by national chapters, planned energetically and submitted to corresponding administrative authorities for support. They could be attached to research institutions, e.g., the Max-Planck or Fraunhofer Institutes in Germany or to universities. Their scope and research areas relate to the elaboration of knowledge systems of subject related concepts, according to Desideratum 1, and may be connected to training activities and KOsubject-related research work. 7. ISKO experts should not accept to be impressed by Internet and Computer Science, but should demonstrate their expertise more actively on the public plane. They should tend to take a leading part in the ISKO Secretariats and the KO Institutes, and act as consultants and informants, as well as editors of statistics and other publications. 8. All colleagues trained in the field of classification/indexing and thesauri construction and active in different countries should be identified and approached for membership in ISKO. This would have to be accomplished by the General Secretariat with the collaboration of the experts in the different secretariats of the countries, as soon as they start to work. The more members ISKO will have, the greater will be its reputation and influence. But it will also prove its professionalism by the quality of its products, especially its innovating conceptual order systems to come. 9. ISKO should-especially in view of global expansion-intensify the promotion of knowledge about its own subject area through the publications mentioned here and in further publications as deemed necessary. It should be made clear that, especially in ISKO's own publications, professional subject indexes are a sine qua non. 10. 1) Knowledge Organization, having arisen from librarianship and documentation, the contents of which has many points of contact with numerous application fields, should-although still linked up with its areas of descent-be recognized in the long run as an independent autonomous discipline to be located under the science of science, since only thereby can it fully play its role as an equal partner in all application fields; and, 2) An "at-a-first-glance knowledge order" could be implemented through the Information Coding Classification (ICC), as this system is based on an entirely new approach, namely based on general object areas, thus deviating from discipline-oriented main classes of the current main universal classification systems. It can therefore recoup by simple display on screen the hitherto lost overview of all knowledge areas and fields. On "one look", one perceives 9 object areas subdivided into 9 aspects which break down into 81 subject areas with their 729 subject fields, including further special fields. The synthesis and place of order of all knowledge becomes thus evident at a glance to everybody. Nobody would any longer be irritated by the abundance of singular apparently unrelated knowledge fields or become hesitant in his/her understanding of the world.