Search (38 results, page 1 of 2)

0.06845769 = product of:
  0.27383077 = sum of:
    0.11122993 = weight(_text_:descriptive in 3345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.11122993 = score(doc=3345,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17974061 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.601063 = idf(docFreq=443, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.6188358 = fieldWeight in 3345, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.601063 = idf(docFreq=443, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3345)
    0.070092075 = weight(_text_:cataloguing in 3345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.070092075 = score(doc=3345,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14268221 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.49124604 = fieldWeight in 3345, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3345)
    0.070092075 = weight(_text_:cataloguing in 3345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.070092075 = score(doc=3345,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14268221 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.49124604 = fieldWeight in 3345, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3345)
    0.022416692 = product of:
      0.044833384 = sum of:
        0.044833384 = weight(_text_:ed in 3345) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044833384 = score(doc=3345,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11411327 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.39288494 = fieldWeight in 3345, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.078125 = fieldNorm(doc=3345)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(4/16)

Issue

3rd ed.

0.03438495 = product of:
  0.1375398 = sum of:
    0.035046037 = weight(_text_:cataloguing in 811) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035046037 = score(doc=811,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14268221 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.24562302 = fieldWeight in 811, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=811)
    0.022482576 = product of:
      0.04496515 = sum of:
        0.04496515 = weight(_text_:rules in 811) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04496515 = score(doc=811,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.27821955 = fieldWeight in 811, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=811)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.035046037 = weight(_text_:cataloguing in 811) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035046037 = score(doc=811,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14268221 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.24562302 = fieldWeight in 811, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=811)
    0.04496515 = weight(_text_:rules in 811) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04496515 = score(doc=811,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.27821955 = fieldWeight in 811, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=811)
  0.25 = coord(4/16)

Abstract

We understand "theory" to be a system of testable explanatory statements derived from research. In knowledge organization, the generation of theory has moved from an epistemic stance of pragmatism (based on observation of the construction of retrieval tools), to empiricism (based on the results of empirical research). In the nineteenth century, Panizzi (1841), Cutter (1876), and Dewey (1876), developed very pragmatic tools (i.e., catalogs and classifications), explaining as they did so the principles by which their tools were constructed. By 1950, key papers at a University of Chicago Graduate Library School conference on "Bibliographic Organization" recorded the role of bibliographic organization in civilization (Clapp, 1950) and deemed classification the basis of bibliographic organization (Shera, 1950). In 1961, the International Conference on Cataloguing Principles in Paris brought together key thinkers on the design of catalogs. Wilson (1968) expounded a system for bibliographic apparatus, and provided the framework for empirical theoretical development. In 2000, Svenonius asserted that knowledge organization is accomplished through a bibliographic language (or, more properly through a complex set of bibliographic languages), with semantics, syntax, pragmatics, and rules to govern their implementation. Logical positivism notwithstanding, rationalist and historicist stances have begun to come to the fore of late through the promulgation of qualitative methods, most notably those employed in classification, user-interface design, and bibliometric research.

0.022852503 = product of:
  0.12188002 = sum of:
    0.022109302 = weight(_text_:26 in 1412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022109302 = score(doc=1412,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.113328174 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.19509095 = fieldWeight in 1412, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1412)
    0.055614963 = weight(_text_:descriptive in 1412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055614963 = score(doc=1412,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17974061 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.601063 = idf(docFreq=443, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.3094179 = fieldWeight in 1412, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.601063 = idf(docFreq=443, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1412)
    0.044155754 = sum of:
      0.022416692 = weight(_text_:ed in 1412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.022416692 = score(doc=1412,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.11411327 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
            0.032090448 = queryNorm
          0.19644247 = fieldWeight in 1412, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1412)
      0.021739064 = weight(_text_:22 in 1412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.021739064 = score(doc=1412,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.11237528 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.032090448 = 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)
  0.1875 = coord(3/16)

Abstract

Scholarly domains have been analyzed using various tools and techniques to reveal complex genealogies of scholarship, authorship, citation and ontology, resulting in not only deeper knowledge of each area studied, but in a better developed set of methodologies for domain exploration in general. While domain analysis itself is being used frequently in LIS, there remain many areas against which domain analytical tools have not yet been applied. This is the case with encyclopedic collections of knowledge, such as that which is being developed as the Encyclopedia of Milwaukee (EMKE) within the history department at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. This descriptive study will analyze resources categorized under race and ethnicity from a comprehensive bibliography on the history of metropolitan Milwaukee that was designed to serve those who would research and write entries for the EMKE. Bibliometric and analytic techniques are employed to explore the intension and extension of the domain as it is developing.

Date

4. 9.2014 19:26:51

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

0.020114532 = product of:
  0.16091625 = sum of:
    0.13401622 = weight(_text_:2nd in 4238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.13401622 = score(doc=4238,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18010403 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.6123877 = idf(docFreq=438, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.7441045 = fieldWeight in 4238, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.6123877 = idf(docFreq=438, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4238)
    0.026900033 = product of:
      0.053800065 = sum of:
        0.053800065 = weight(_text_:ed in 4238) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.053800065 = score(doc=4238,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11411327 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.47146195 = fieldWeight in 4238, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=4238)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Issue

2nd ed.

0.019986346 = product of:
  0.10659385 = sum of:
    0.031795166 = product of:
      0.06359033 = sum of:
        0.06359033 = weight(_text_:rules in 5652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06359033 = score(doc=5652,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.39346188 = fieldWeight in 5652, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5652)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.06359033 = weight(_text_:rules in 5652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06359033 = score(doc=5652,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.39346188 = fieldWeight in 5652, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5652)
    0.011208346 = product of:
      0.022416692 = sum of:
        0.022416692 = weight(_text_:ed in 5652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022416692 = score(doc=5652,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11411327 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.19644247 = fieldWeight in 5652, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5652)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1875 = coord(3/16)

Abstract

From a historical perspective, one could consider the modern library catalog to be that bibliographical apparatus that stretches at least from Thomas Hyde's catalog for the Bodleian Library at Oxford to the near present. Mai and other recent authors have suggested postmodern approaches to knowledge organization. In these, we realize that there is no single and unique order of knowledge or documents but rather there are many appropriate orders, all of them contextually dependent. Works (oeuvres, opera, Werke, etc.), as are musical works, literary works, works of art, etc., are and always have been key entities for information retrieval. Yet catalogs in the modern era were designed to inventory (first) and retrieve (second) specific documents. From Hyde's catalog for the Bodleian until the late twentieth century, developments are epistemologically pragmatic--reflected in the structure of catalog records, in the rules for main entry headings, and in the rules for filing in card catalogs. After 1980 developments become empirical-reflected in research conducted by Tillett, Yee, Smiraglia, Leazer, Carlyle, and Vellucci. The influence of empiricism on the pragmatic notion of "the work" has led to increased focus on the concept of the work. The challenge for the postmodern online catalog is to fully embrace the concept of "the work," finally to facilitate it as a prime objective for information retrieval.

Source

Historical aspects of cataloging and classification. Ed.: M.D. Joachim

0.016393017 = product of:
  0.08742943 = sum of:
    0.055614963 = weight(_text_:descriptive in 3043) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055614963 = score(doc=3043,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17974061 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.601063 = idf(docFreq=443, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.3094179 = fieldWeight in 3043, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.601063 = idf(docFreq=443, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3043)
    0.02060612 = weight(_text_:american in 3043) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02060612 = score(doc=3043,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.18834224 = fieldWeight in 3043, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3043)
    0.011208346 = product of:
      0.022416692 = sum of:
        0.022416692 = weight(_text_:ed in 3043) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022416692 = score(doc=3043,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11411327 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.19644247 = fieldWeight in 3043, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3043)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.1875 = coord(3/16)

Abstract

A major problem for bibliographic retrieval is an absence of explicit linkages to guide users among manifestations of a work. The purpose of this research was to enhance the power of bibliographic retrieval systems by providing contextual information about the derivative bibliographic relationship. Descriptive survey method was employed. A sample of 411 works from the Georgetown University on-line catalog was drawn. 49.9% of works were derivative. Age of a progenitor work is the characteristic most strongly associated with derivation; language and country of origin are indifferent predictors. Popularity of works might contribute to the phenomenon of derivation. The mean size of bibliographic families of derivative works was 8.44 members. The majority of bibliographic families had successive derivations, large groups of bibliographic families had translations and simultaneous editions; few had extractions, amplifications, or performances; none had adaptations. Successive derivations are the most commonly found members of bibliographic families, and are associated with most other types of derivation within bibliographic families. The bibliographic data required for explicit control of works might easily be compiled from existing records. The development of bibliographic retrieval systems in the network environment could play a dramatic role in improving retrieval of works

Source

Navigating the networks: Proceedings of the 1994 Mid-year Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, Portland, Oregon, May 21-25, 1994. Ed.: D.L. Andersen et al

0.014868774 = product of:
  0.118950196 = sum of:
    0.059475098 = weight(_text_:cataloguing in 1761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059475098 = score(doc=1761,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14268221 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.4168361 = fieldWeight in 1761, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1761)
    0.059475098 = weight(_text_:cataloguing in 1761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.059475098 = score(doc=1761,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14268221 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.4168361 = fieldWeight in 1761, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.446252 = idf(docFreq=1408, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1761)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Abstract

For a long time music librarians have grappled with the problem of cataloguing music scores along with physical recordings, including videorecordings of musical performances, in such a way as to collocate als physical forms in an intelligible order. The critical problems are, how to identify the properties of musical bibliographic entities and then how to control each property in the bibliographic universe and in each of the subsets of that universe, such as the library OPAC. Examines the concept of the 'musical work' as it has been decribed by bibliographers, cataloguers and scholars of bibliographic control. Concludes that there is ample evidence that equality exists among the representations of a musical work regardless of their physical formats. An understanding of the concept of the musical work should obviate the need to reconsider forms of access under current cataloguing practice and lead the way to the next generation of bibliographic control for musical works

0.011923187 = product of:
  0.0953855 = sum of:
    0.031795166 = product of:
      0.06359033 = sum of:
        0.06359033 = weight(_text_:rules in 5631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06359033 = score(doc=5631,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
              5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.39346188 = fieldWeight in 5631, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5631)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.06359033 = weight(_text_:rules in 5631) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06359033 = score(doc=5631,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16161752 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.39346188 = fieldWeight in 5631, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.036312 = idf(docFreq=780, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5631)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Abstract

From a historical perspective, one could consider the modern library catalog to be that bibliographical apparatus that stretches at least from Thomas Hyde's catalog for the Bodleian Library at Oxford to the near present. Mai and other recent authors have suggested postmodern approaches to knowledge organization. In these, we realize that there is no single and unique order of knowledge or documents but rather there are many appropriate orders, all of them contextually dependent. Works (oeuvres, opera, Werke, etc.), as are musical works, literary works, works of art, etc., are and always have been key entities for information retrieval. Yet catalogs in the modern era were designed to inventory (first) and retrieve (second) specific documents. From Hyde's catalog for the Bodleian until the late twentieth century, developments are epistemologically pragmatic--reflected in the structure of catalog records, in the rules for main entry headings, and in the rules for filing in card catalogs. After 1980 developments become empirical-reflected in research conducted by Tillett, Yee, Smiraglia, Leazer, Carlyle, and Vellucci. The influence of empiricism on the pragmatic notion of "the work" has led to increased focus on the concept of the work. The challenge for the postmodern online catalog is to fully embrace the concept of "the work," finally to facilitate it as a prime objective for information retrieval.

0.0050437246 = product of:
  0.040349796 = sum of:
    0.029141452 = weight(_text_:american in 6676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029141452 = score(doc=6676,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.26635614 = fieldWeight in 6676, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6676)
    0.011208346 = product of:
      0.022416692 = sum of:
        0.022416692 = weight(_text_:ed in 6676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022416692 = score(doc=6676,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11411327 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.19644247 = fieldWeight in 6676, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6676)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Series

Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science; vol.36

Source

Knowledge: creation, organization and use. Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, 31.10.-4.11.1999. Ed.: L. Woods

0.0048663095 = product of:
  0.07786095 = sum of:
    0.07786095 = weight(_text_:descriptive in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07786095 = score(doc=343,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.17974061 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.601063 = idf(docFreq=443, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.4331851 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.601063 = idf(docFreq=443, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Abstract

Bibliographic control does not differ in substance from one type of material to another. Therefore it is not possible to separate the bibliographic control of music materials entirely from the larger domain of bibliographic control activity. The literature of music librarianship is examined for relevant theoretical explanations. Specific problems of description and access are used to show that, in general, the requirements for bibliographic control of music fit neatly into the theoretical structure for all bibliographic control. The primary purpose of descriptive cataloging of musical objects is to identify and differentiate among objects in a library collection. Where the concept of responsibility is relevant, access is provided through the names of composers or performers. Systematic access is provided through co-equal facets: medium, manifestation, and form.

0.004126692 = product of:
  0.066027075 = sum of:
    0.066027075 = weight(_text_:author in 1513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.066027075 = score(doc=1513,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.42645246 = fieldWeight in 1513, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1513)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

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.

0.004122354 = product of:
  0.032978833 = sum of:
    0.022109302 = weight(_text_:26 in 107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022109302 = score(doc=107,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.113328174 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.19509095 = fieldWeight in 107, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5315237 = idf(docFreq=3516, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=107)
    0.010869532 = product of:
      0.021739064 = sum of:
        0.021739064 = weight(_text_:22 in 107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021739064 = score(doc=107,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11237528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = 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)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22
14.12.2006 10:06:26

0.0033116818 = product of:
  0.05298691 = sum of:
    0.05298691 = sum of:
      0.026900033 = weight(_text_:ed in 1415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026900033 = score(doc=1415,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.11411327 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
            0.032090448 = queryNorm
          0.23573098 = fieldWeight in 1415, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1415)
      0.026086876 = weight(_text_:22 in 1415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026086876 = score(doc=1415,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.11237528 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.032090448 = 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)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

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

0.0033116818 = product of:
  0.05298691 = sum of:
    0.05298691 = sum of:
      0.026900033 = weight(_text_:ed in 1420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026900033 = score(doc=1420,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.11411327 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
            0.032090448 = queryNorm
          0.23573098 = fieldWeight in 1420, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.5559888 = idf(docFreq=3431, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1420)
      0.026086876 = weight(_text_:22 in 1420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.026086876 = score(doc=1420,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.11237528 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.032090448 = 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)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

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

0.0032585282 = product of:
  0.026068226 = sum of:
    0.02063346 = weight(_text_:author in 1919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02063346 = score(doc=1919,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.13326639 = fieldWeight in 1919, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1919)
    0.005434766 = product of:
      0.010869532 = sum of:
        0.010869532 = weight(_text_:22 in 1919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010869532 = score(doc=1919,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11237528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = 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)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

Content

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

Date

12. 6.2008 20:18:22

0.0031475653 = product of:
  0.025180522 = sum of:
    0.016484896 = weight(_text_:american in 770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016484896 = score(doc=770,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.15067379 = fieldWeight in 770, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=770)
    0.008695626 = product of:
      0.017391251 = sum of:
        0.017391251 = weight(_text_:22 in 770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017391251 = score(doc=770,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.11237528 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.032090448 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 770, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=770)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(2/16)

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.

0.0030950191 = product of:
  0.049520306 = sum of:
    0.049520306 = weight(_text_:author in 5575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.049520306 = score(doc=5575,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.31983936 = fieldWeight in 5575, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5575)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Abstract

The fundamental principle of order in the library catalogue is the authorship principle, which serves as the organizing node of an alphabetico-classed system, in which "texts" of "works" are organized first alphabetically by uniform title of the progenitor work and then are subarranged using titles for variant instantiations, under the heading for an "author." We analyze case studies of entries from (1) the first documented imperial library catalogue, the Seven Epitomes (Qilue [??]), in China; (2) Abelard's Works, which featured prominently in the 1848 testimony of Antonio Panizzi; and (3) The French Chef and the large family of instantiated works associated with it. Our analysis shows that the catalogue typically contains many large superwork sets. A more pragmatic approach to the design of catalogues is to array descriptions of resources in relation to the superwork sets to which they might belong. In all cases, a multidimensional faceted arrangement incorporating ideational nodes from the universe of recorded knowledge holds promise for greatly enhanced retrieval capability.

0.0025791824 = product of:
  0.04126692 = sum of:
    0.04126692 = weight(_text_:author in 5678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04126692 = score(doc=5678,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.15482868 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.26653278 = fieldWeight in 5678, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5678)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Abstract

Explicit authority control of works is essentially non-existent. Our catalogs are built on a principle of controlling headings, and primarily headings for names of authors. Our syndetic structure creates a spider's web of networked relationships among forms of headings, but it ends there, despite the potential richness of depth among bibliographic entities. Effective authority control of works could yield richness in the catalog that would enhance retrieval capabilities. Works are considered to constitute the intellectual content of informative artifacts that may be collected and ordered for retrieval. In a 1992 study the author examined a random sample of works drawn from the catalog of the Georgetown University Library. For each progenitor work, an instantiation network (also referred to as a bibliographic family) was constituted. A detailed analysis of the linkages that would be required for authority control of these networks is reviewed here. A new study is also presented, in which Library of Congress authority records for the works in this sample are sought and analyzed. Results demonstrate a near total lack of control, with only 5.6% of works for which authority records were found. From a sample of 410 works, of which nearly half have instantiation networks, only 23 works could be said to have implicit authority control. However, many instantiation networks are made up of successive derivations that can be implicitly linked through collocation. The difficult work of explicitly linking instantiations comes with title changes, translations, and containing relations. The empirical evidence in the present study suggests that explicit control of expressions will provide the best control over instantiation networks because it is instantiations such as translations, abridgments, and adaptations that require explicit linking.

0.0018213408 = product of:
  0.029141452 = sum of:
    0.029141452 = weight(_text_:american in 3663) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029141452 = score(doc=3663,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.26635614 = fieldWeight in 3663, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3663)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

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

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 50(1999) no.6, S.493-504

0.0018030355 = product of:
  0.028848568 = sum of:
    0.028848568 = weight(_text_:american in 1066) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028848568 = score(doc=1066,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10940785 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.032090448 = queryNorm
        0.26367915 = fieldWeight in 1066, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.4093587 = idf(docFreq=3973, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1066)
  0.0625 = coord(1/16)

Footnote

Part of a section: "Papers from the Fourth North American Symposium on Knowledge Organization, sponsored by ISKO-Canada, United States, 13-14 June, 2013, Milwaukee, Wisconsin"