Search (30 results, page 1 of 2)

0.011030885 = product of:
  0.049638983 = sum of:
    0.016935252 = weight(_text_:of in 3516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016935252 = score(doc=3516,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 3516, 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=3516)
    0.03270373 = weight(_text_:systems in 3516) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03270373 = score(doc=3516,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2716328 = fieldWeight in 3516, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3516)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

A universal non-discipline-based classification is a complement to, rather than substitute for, domain-specific classifications. Cognitive work analysis suggests that especially interdisciplinary researchers but also specialized researchers would benefit from both types of classification. Both practical and theoretical considerations point to complementarity. The research efforts of scholars pursuing both types of classification can thus usefully reinforce each other.

Source

Paradigms and conceptual systems in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Eleventh International ISKO Conference, 23-26 February 2010 Rome, Italy. Edited by Claudio Gnoli and Fulvio Mazzocchi

0.009899746 = product of:
  0.044548854 = sum of:
    0.012701439 = weight(_text_:of in 591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012701439 = score(doc=591,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.20732689 = fieldWeight in 591, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=591)
    0.031847417 = product of:
      0.063694835 = sum of:
        0.063694835 = weight(_text_:22 in 591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.063694835 = score(doc=591,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.46428138 = fieldWeight in 591, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=591)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Date

22. 2.2013 12:35:05

0.00968611 = product of:
  0.043587495 = sum of:
    0.01526523 = weight(_text_:of in 3804) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01526523 = score(doc=3804,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2491759 = fieldWeight in 3804, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3804)
    0.028322265 = weight(_text_:systems in 3804) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028322265 = score(doc=3804,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2352409 = fieldWeight in 3804, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3804)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

This book proposes a novel approach to classification, discusses its myriad advantages, and outlines how such an approach to classification can best be pursued. It encourages a collaborative effort toward the detailed development of such a classification. This book is motivated by the increased importance of interdisciplinary scholarship in the academy, and the widely perceived shortcomings of existing knowledge organization schemes in serving interdisciplinary scholarship. It is designed for scholars of classification research, knowledge organization, the digital environment, and interdisciplinarity itself. The approach recommended blends a general classification with domain-specific classification practices. The book reaches a set of very strong conclusions:
-Existing classification systems serve interdisciplinary research and teaching poorly. -A novel approach to classification, grounded in the phenomena studied rather than disciplines, would serve interdisciplinary scholarship much better. It would also have advantages for disciplinary scholarship. The productivity of scholarship would thus be increased. -This novel approach is entirely feasible. Various concerns that might be raised can each be addressed. The broad outlines of what a new classification would look like are developed. -This new approach might serve as a complement to or a substitute for existing classification systems. -Domain analysis can and should be employed in the pursuit of a general classification. This will be particularly important with respect to interdisciplinary domains. -Though the impetus for this novel approach comes from interdisciplinarity, it is also better suited to the needs of the Semantic Web, and a digital environment more generally. Though the primary focus of the book is on classification systems, most chapters also address how the analysis could be extended to thesauri and ontologies. The possibility of a universal thesaurus is explored. The classification proposed has many of the advantages sought in ontologies for the Semantic Web. The book is therefore of interest to scholars working in these areas as well.

0.008616175 = product of:
  0.038772784 = sum of:
    0.018332949 = weight(_text_:of in 661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018332949 = score(doc=661,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 661, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=661)
    0.020439833 = weight(_text_:systems in 661) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020439833 = score(doc=661,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.1697705 = fieldWeight in 661, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=661)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Some relevant proposals regarding the future of knowledge organization emerged during the 8th conference of the ISKO Spanish chapter, which took place in the beautiful, lively atmosphere of the town of León, between 18 and 20 of April 2007. These proposals are here labeled as "the Leon manifesto", and can be summarized in the following points: - the current trend towards an increasing interdisciplinarity of knowledge calls for essentially new knowledge organization systems (KOS), based on a substantive revision of the principles underlying the traditional discipline-based KOS; - this innovation is not only desirable, but also feasible, and should be implemented by actually developing some new KOS; instead of disciplines, the basic unity of the new KOS should be phenomena of the real world as it is represented in human knowledge; - the new KOS should allow users to shift from one perspective or viewpoint to another, thus reflecting the multidimensional nature of complex thought. In particular, it should allow them to search independently for particular phenomena, for particular theories about phenomena (and about relations between phenomena), and for particular methods of investigation; - the connections between phenomena, those between phenomena and the theories studying them, and those between phenomena and the methods to investigate them, can be expressed and managed by analytico-synthetic techniques already developed in faceted classification.

0.008161413 = product of:
  0.036726356 = sum of:
    0.018148692 = weight(_text_:of in 1404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018148692 = score(doc=1404,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 1404, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1404)
    0.018577661 = product of:
      0.037155323 = sum of:
        0.037155323 = weight(_text_:22 in 1404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037155323 = score(doc=1404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13719016 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03917671 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 1404, 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=1404)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

The key argument of this paper is that the field of knowledge organization can potentially provide a powerful - and indeed the only powerful - response to the skeptical claims that are common in the contemporary academy. Though skeptical arguments have an important place in our field - the present author readily confesses to having learned much in responding to such arguments - it would be unfortunate if the field of knowledge organization were to assume the correctness of a skeptical outlook. Rather, the field should essay to combat the sources of skepticism. Strategies for doing so are outlined.

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

0.007862415 = product of:
  0.035380866 = sum of:
    0.023116967 = weight(_text_:of in 325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023116967 = score(doc=325,freq=106.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.3773406 = fieldWeight in 325, product of:
          10.29563 = tf(freq=106.0), with freq of:
            106.0 = termFreq=106.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=325)
    0.0122639 = weight(_text_:systems in 325) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0122639 = score(doc=325,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12039685 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.1018623 = fieldWeight in 325, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.0731742 = idf(docFreq=5561, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=325)
  0.22222222 = coord(2/9)

Abstract

Classification is the essential first step in science. The study of science, as well as the practice of science, will thus benefit from a detailed classification of different types of science. In this book, science - defined broadly to include the social sciences and humanities - is first unpacked into its constituent elements: the phenomena studied, the data used, the theories employed, the methods applied, and the practices of scientists. These five elements are then classified in turn. Notably, the classifications of both theory types and methods allow the key strengths and weaknesses of different theories and methods to be readily discerned and compared. Connections across classifications are explored: should certain theories or phenomena be investigated only with certain methods? What is the proper function and form of scientific paradigms? Are certain common errors and biases in scientific practice associated with particular phenomena, data, theories, or methods? The classifications point to several ways of improving both specialized and interdisciplinary research and teaching, and especially of enhancing communication across communities of scholars. The classifications also support a superior system of document classification that would allow searches by theory and method used as well as causal links investigated.

Content

Inhalt: - Chapter 1: Classifying Science: 1.1. A Simple Classificatory Guideline - 1.2. The First "Cut" (and Plan of Work) - 1.3. Some Preliminaries - Chapter 2: Classifying Phenomena and Data: 2.1. Classifying Phenomena - 2.2. Classifying Data - Chapter 3: Classifying Theory: 3.1. Typology of Theory - 3.2. What Is a Theory? - 3.3. Evaluating Theories - 3.4. Types of Theory and the Five Types of Causation - 3.5. Classifying Individual Theories - 3.6. Advantages of a Typology of Theory - Chapter 4: Classifying Method: 4.1. Classifying Methods - 4.2. Typology of Strengths and Weaknesses of Methods - 4.3. Qualitative Versus Quantitative Analysis Revisited - 4.4. Evaluating Methods - 4.5. Classifying Particular Methods Within The Typology - 4.6. Advantages of a Typology of Methods - Chapter 5: Classifying Practice: 5.1. Errors and Biases in ScienceChapter - 5.2. Typology of (Critiques of) Scientific Practice - 5.3. Utilizing This Classification - 5.4. The Five Types of Ethical Analysis - Chapter 6: Drawing Connections Across These Classifications: 6.1. Theory and Method - 6.2. Theory (Method) and Phenomena (Data) - 6.3. Better Paradigms - 6.4. Critiques of Scientific Practice: Are They Correlated with Other Classifications? - Chapter 7: Classifying Scientific Documents: 7.1. Faceted or Enumerative? - 7.2. Classifying By Phenomena Studied - 7.3. Classifying By Theory Used - 7.4. Classifying By Method Used - 7.5 Links Among Subjects - 7.6. Type of Work, Language, and More - 7.7. Critiques of Scientific Practice - 7.8. Classifying Philosophy - 7.9. Evaluating the System - Chapter 8: Concluding Remarks: 8.1. The Classifications - 8.2. Advantages of These Various Classifications - 8.3. Drawing Connections Across Classifications - 8.4. Golden Mean Arguments - 8.5. Why Should Science Be Believed? - 8.6. How Can Science Be Improved? - 8.7. How Should Science Be Taught?

Footnote

Rez. in: KO 32(2005) no.2, S.93-95 (H. Albrechtsen): "The book deals with mapping of the structures and contents of sciences, defined broadly to include the social sciences and the humanities. According to the author, the study of science, as well as the practice of science, could benefit from a detailed classification of different types of science. The book defines five universal constituents of the sciences: phenomena, data, theories, methods and practice. For each of these constituents, the author poses five questions, in the well-known 5W format: Who, What, Where, When, Why? - with the addition of the question How? (Szostak 2003). Two objectives of the author's endeavor stand out: 1) decision support for university curriculum development across disciplines and decision support for university students at advanced levels of education in selection of appropriate courses for their projects and to support cross-disciplinary inquiry for researchers and students; 2) decision support for researchers and students in scientific inquiry across disciplines, methods and theories. The main prospective audience of this book is university curriculum developers, university students and researchers, in that order of priority. The heart of the book is the chapters unfolding the author's ideas about how to classify phenomena and data, theory, method and practice, by use of the 5W inquiry model. . . .
Despite its methodological flaws and lack of empirical foundation, the book could potentially bring new ideas to current discussions within the practices of curriculum development and knowledge management as weIl as design of information systems, an classification schemes as tools for knowledge sharing, decision-making and knowledge exploration. I hesitate to recommend the book to students, except to students at advanced levels of study, because of its biased presentation of the new ideas and its basis an secondary literature."

LCSH

Classification of sciences

Subject

Classification of sciences

0.002851792 = product of:
  0.025666127 = sum of:
    0.025666127 = weight(_text_:of in 5541) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025666127 = score(doc=5541,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.41895083 = fieldWeight in 5541, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5541)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Any classification system should be evaluated with respect to a variety of philosophical and practical concerns. This paper explores several distinct issues: the nature of a work, the value of a statement, the contribution of information science to philosophy, the nature of hierarchy, ethical evaluation, pre- versus postcoordination, the lived experience of librarians, and formalization versus natural language. It evaluates a particular approach to classification in terms of each of these but draws general lessons for philosophical evaluation. That approach to classification emphasizes the free combination of basic concepts representing both real things in the world and the relationships among these; works are also classified in terms of theories, methods, and perspectives applied.

Content

Beitrag in einem Themenheft: 'Exploring Philosophies of Information'.

0.002469724 = product of:
  0.022227516 = sum of:
    0.022227516 = weight(_text_:of in 1923) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022227516 = score(doc=1923,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 1923, 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=1923)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

This paper develops a classification of relationships among things, with many potential uses within information science. Unlike previous classifications of relationships, it is hoped that this classification will provide benefits that exceed the costs of application. The major theoretical innovation is to stress the importance of causal relationships, albeit not exclusively. The paper also stresses the advantages of using compounds of simpler terms: verbs compounded with other verbs, adverbs, or things. The classification builds upon a review of the previous literature and a broad inductive survey of potential sources in a recent article in this journal. The result is a classification that is both manageable in size and easy to apply and yet encompasses all of the relationships necessary for classifying documents or even ideas.

0.002469724 = product of:
  0.022227516 = sum of:
    0.022227516 = weight(_text_:of in 131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022227516 = score(doc=131,freq=18.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.36282203 = fieldWeight in 131, 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=131)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Several attempts have been made to develop a classification of relationships, but none of these have been widely accepted or applied within information science. It would seem that information scientists, while appreciating the potential value of a classification of relationships, have found all previous classifications to be too complicated in application relative to the benefits they provide. This paper begins by reviewing previous attempts and drawing lessons from these. It then surveys a range of sources within and beyond the field of knowledge organization that can together provide the basis for the development of a novel classification of relationships. One critical insight is that relationships governing causation/influence should be accorded priority.

0.0022314154 = product of:
  0.020082738 = sum of:
    0.020082738 = weight(_text_:of in 1084) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020082738 = score(doc=1084,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.32781258 = fieldWeight in 1084, 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=1084)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

A synthetic and universal approach to classification which allows the free combination of basic concepts would better address a variety of challenges in classifying both humanities scholarship and the works of art (including literature) that humanists study. Four key characteristics of this classificatory approach are stressed: a universal non-discipline-based approach, a synthetic approach that allows free combination of any concepts but stresses a sentence-like structure, emphasis on basic concepts (for which there are broadly shared understandings across groups and individuals), and finally classification of works also in terms of the theories, methods, and perspectives applied. The implications of these four characteristics, alone or (often) in concert, for many aspects of classification in the humanities are discussed. Several advantages are found both for classifying humanities scholarship and works of art. The se four characteristics are each found in the Basic Concepts Classification (which is briefly compared to other faceted classifications), but each could potentially be adopted elsewhere as well.

0.0022002053 = product of:
  0.019801848 = sum of:
    0.019801848 = weight(_text_:of in 1893) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019801848 = score(doc=1893,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.32322758 = fieldWeight in 1893, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1893)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Purpose - This paper aims to respond to the 2005 paper by Hjørland and Nissen Pedersen by suggesting that an exhaustive and universal classification of the phenomena that scholars study, and the methods and theories they apply, is feasible. It seeks to argue that such a classification is critical for interdisciplinary scholarship. Design/methodology/approach - The paper presents a literature-based conceptual analysis, taking Hjørland and Nissen Pedersen as its starting point. Hjørland and Nissen Pedersen had identified several difficulties that would be encountered in developing such a classification; the paper suggests how each of these can be overcome. It also urges a deductive approach as complementary to the inductive approach recommended by Hjørland and Nissen Pedersen. Findings - The paper finds that an exhaustive and universal classification of scholarly documents in terms of (at least) the phenomena that scholars study, and the theories and methods they apply, appears to be both possible and desirable. Practical implications - The paper suggests how such a project can be begun. In particular it stresses the importance of classifying documents in terms of causal links between phenomena. Originality/value - The paper links the information science, interdisciplinary, and study of science literatures, and suggests that the types of classification outlined above would be of great value to scientists/scholars, and that they are possible.

Content

Bezugnahme auf: Hjoerland, B., K.N. Pedersen: A substantive theory of classification for information retrieval. In: Journal of documentation. 61(2005) no.5, S.582-597. - Vgl. auch: Hjoerland, R.: Core classification theory: : a reply to Szostak. In: Journal of documentation. 64(2008) no.3, S.333 - 342.

Source

Journal of documentation. 64(2008) no.3, S.319-332

0.0022002053 = product of:
  0.019801848 = sum of:
    0.019801848 = weight(_text_:of in 5883) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019801848 = score(doc=5883,freq=28.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.32322758 = fieldWeight in 5883, product of:
          5.2915025 = tf(freq=28.0), with freq of:
            28.0 = termFreq=28.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5883)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

The Basics Concept Classification (BCC) is a "universal" scheme: it attempts to encompass all areas of human understanding. Whereas most universal schemes are organized around scholarly disciplines, the BCC is instead organized around phenomena (things), the relationships that exist among phenomena, and the properties that phenomena and relators may possess. This structure allows the BCC to apply facet analysis without requiring the use of "facet indicators." The main motivation for the BCC was a recognition that existing classifications that are organized around disciplines serve interdisciplinary scholarship poorly. Complex concepts that might be understood quite differently across groups and individuals can generally be broken into basic concepts for which there is enough shared understanding for the purposes of classification. Documents, ideas, and objects are classified synthetically by combining entries from the schedules of phenomena, relators, and properties. The inclusion of separate schedules of-generally verb-like-relators is one of the most unusual aspects of the BCC. This (and the schedules of properties that serve as adjectives or adverbs) allows the production of sentence-like subject strings. Documents can then be classified in terms of the main arguments made in the document. BCC provides very precise descriptors of documents by combining phenomena, relators, and properties synthetically. The terminology employed in the BCC reduces terminological ambiguity. The BCC is still being developed and it needs to be fleshed out in certain respects. Yet it also needs to be applied; only in application can the feasibility and desirability of the classification be adequately assessed.

Series

Reviews of concepts in knowledge organization

0.0021780923 = product of:
  0.01960283 = sum of:
    0.01960283 = weight(_text_:of in 2104) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01960283 = score(doc=2104,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.31997898 = fieldWeight in 2104, product of:
          3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
            14.0 = termFreq=14.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2104)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

This paper develops a simple yet powerful typology of scholarly theory, based an the 5W questions: "Who?", "What?", "Where?", "When?", and "Why?". It also develops a list of the twelve distinct methods used by scholars. These are then evaluated in terms of the 5W questions. Classifying theory types and methods allows scholars and students to better appreciate the advantages and disadvantages of different theory types and methods. Classifications of theory and method can and should be important components of a system for classifying scholarly documents. Researchers and students are presently limited in their ability to search by theory type or method. As a result, scholars often "re-invent" previous research of which they were unaware.

0.0021201707 = product of:
  0.019081537 = sum of:
    0.019081537 = weight(_text_:of in 4825) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019081537 = score(doc=4825,freq=26.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.31146988 = fieldWeight in 4825, product of:
          5.0990195 = tf(freq=26.0), with freq of:
            26.0 = termFreq=26.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4825)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Freely faceted classifications allow for free combination of concepts across all knowledge domains, and for sorting of the resulting compound classmarks. Starting from work by the Classification Research Group, the Integrative Levels Classification (ILC) project has produced a first edition of a general freely faceted scheme. The system is managed as a MySQL database, and can be browsed through a Web interface. The ILC database structure provides a case for identifying and representing the structural elements of any freely faceted classification. These belong to both the notational and the verbal planes. Notational elements include: arrays, chains, deictics, facets, foci, place of definition of foci, examples of combinations, subclasses of a faceted class, groupings, related classes; verbal elements include: main caption, synonyms, descriptions, included terms, related terms, notes. Encoding of some of these elements in an international mark-up format like SKOS can be problematic, especially as this does not provide for faceted structures, although approximate SKOS equivalents are identified for most of them.

Source

Classification and ontology: formal approaches and access to knowledge: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar, 19-20 September 2011, The Hague, The Netherlands. Eds.: A. Slavic u. E. Civallero

0.0020369943 = product of:
  0.018332949 = sum of:
    0.018332949 = weight(_text_:of in 4926) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018332949 = score(doc=4926,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2992506 = fieldWeight in 4926, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4926)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Interdisciplinary communication, and thus the rate of progress in scholarly understanding, would be greatly enhanced if scholars had access to a universal classification of documents or ideas not grounded in particular disciplines or cultures. Such a classification is feasible if complex concepts can be understood as some combination of more basic concepts. There appear to be five main types of concept theory in the philosophical literature. Each provides some support for the idea of breaking complex into basic concepts that can be understood across disciplines or cultures, but each has detractors. None of these criticisms represents a substantive obstacle to breaking complex concepts into basic concepts within information science. Can we take the subject entries in existing universal but discipline-based classifications, and break these into a set of more basic concepts that can be applied across disciplinary classes? The author performs this sort of analysis for Dewey classes 300 to 339.9. This analysis will serve to identify the sort of 'basic concepts' that would lie at the heart of a truly universal classification. There are two key types of basic concept: the things we study (individuals, rocks, trees), and the relationships among these (talking, moving, paying).

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.11, S.2247-2265

0.0020165213 = product of:
  0.018148692 = sum of:
    0.018148692 = weight(_text_:of in 2250) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018148692 = score(doc=2250,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 2250, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2250)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Content

This paper shows how a variety of theories employed across a range of social sciences could be classified in terms of theory type. In each case, notation within the Integrated Level Classification is provided. The paper thus illustrates how one key element of the Leon Manifesto that scholarly documents should be classified in terms of the theory(ies) applied can be achieved in practice.

Source

Culture and identity in knowledge organization: Proceedings of the Tenth International ISKO Conference 5-8 August 2008, Montreal, Canada. Ed. by Clément Arsenault and Joseph T. Tennis

0.0020165213 = product of:
  0.018148692 = sum of:
    0.018148692 = weight(_text_:of in 4136) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018148692 = score(doc=4136,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.29624295 = fieldWeight in 4136, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4136)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

Several desiderata of a system of subject classification for museums are identified. The limitations of existing approaches are reviewed. It is argued that an approach which synthesizes basic concepts within a grammatical structure can achieve the goals of subject classification in museums while addressing diverse challenges. The same approach can also be applied in galleries, archives, and libraries. The approach is described in some detail and examples are provided of its application. The article closes with brief discussions of thesauri and linked open data.

0.0019958385 = product of:
  0.017962547 = sum of:
    0.017962547 = weight(_text_:of in 1378) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017962547 = score(doc=1378,freq=16.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2932045 = fieldWeight in 1378, product of:
          4.0 = tf(freq=16.0), with freq of:
            16.0 = termFreq=16.0
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1378)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

This paper argues that a new approach to classification best supports and respects social diversity. We should want a classification that facilitates communication both within groups and across groups. We should also want no group to be privileged within the classification. These goals are best accomplished through a truly universal classification, grounded in basic concepts, that classifies works in terms of authorial perspective. Strategies for classifying perspective are discussed. The paper then addresses issues of classification structure. It follows a feminist approach to classification, and shows how a web-of-relations approach can be instantiated in a classification. Finally the paper turns to classificatory process. The key argument here is that much (perhaps all) of the concern regarding the possibility that classes can be subdivided into subclasses in multiple ways, each favored by different groups or individuals, simply vanish es within a web-of-relations approach. The reason is that most of these supposed ways of subdividing classes are in fact ways of subdividing different relationships among classes.

0.0018816947 = product of:
  0.016935252 = sum of:
    0.016935252 = weight(_text_:of in 4699) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016935252 = score(doc=4699,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.27643585 = fieldWeight in 4699, 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=4699)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Source

Challenges and opportunities for knowledge organization in the digital age: proceedings of the Fifteenth International ISKO Conference, 9-11 July 2018, Porto, Portugal / organized by: International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO Spain and Portugal Chapter, University of Porto - Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Research Centre in Communication, Information and Digital Culture (CIC.digital) - Porto. Eds.: F. Ribeiro u. M.E. Cerveira

0.0018669361 = product of:
  0.016802425 = sum of:
    0.016802425 = weight(_text_:of in 803) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016802425 = score(doc=803,freq=14.0), product of:
        0.061262865 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.5637573 = idf(docFreq=25162, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03917671 = queryNorm
        0.2742677 = fieldWeight in 803, 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=803)
  0.11111111 = coord(1/9)

Abstract

This book develops a schema, consisting of a hierarchically organized list of the phenomena of interest to human scientists, and the causal links (influences) which exist among these. This organizing device, and particularly the "unpacking" of "culture" into its constituent phenomena, allows the true complexity of culture to be captured. Unpacking also allows us to sail between the twin dangers of culture bigotry and cultural relativism.

Footnote

Rez. in: KO 39(2012) no.4, S.300-303 (M.J. Fox) Vgl. auch: Szostak, R.: Speaking truth to power in classification: response to Fox's review of my work; KO 39:4, 300. In: Knowledge organization. 40(2013) no.1, S.76-77.