Search (11 results, page 1 of 1)

0.01592754 = product of:
  0.12742032 = sum of:
    0.12742032 = weight(_text_:supported in 894) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.12742032 = score(doc=894,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.22949564 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.55521894 = fieldWeight in 894, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          5.9223356 = idf(docFreq=321, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=894)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Several authors emphasize the need for a change in classification theory due to the influence of a dogmatic and monistic ontology supported by an outdated essentialism. These claims tend to focus on the fallibility of knowledge, the need for a pluralistic view, and the theoretical burden of observations. Regardless of the legitimacy of these concerns, there is the risk, when not moderate, to fall into the opposite relativistic extreme. Based on a narrative review of the literature, we aim to reflectively discuss the theoretical foundations that can serve as a basis for a realist position supporting pluralistic ontological classifications. The goal is to show that, against rather conventional solutions, objective scientific-based approaches to natural classifications are presented to be viable, allowing a proper distinction between ontological and taxonomic questions. Supported by critical scientific realism, we consider that such an approach is suitable for the development of ontological Knowledge Organization Systems (KOS). We believe that ontological perspectivism can provide the necessary adaptation to the different granularities of reality.

0.005098072 = product of:
  0.040784575 = sum of:
    0.040784575 = weight(_text_:work in 1384) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040784575 = score(doc=1384,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.28674924 = fieldWeight in 1384, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1384)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This paper studies knowledge organization (KO) in media archives, focusing on the presence of subjectivity in the core tasks of mass media knowledge organizers (MKOS) dealing with press, radio and TV records, such as classification, representation, and any other process related to content analysis and organization in news information systems. Far from rejecting subjectivity and ideological bias in these operations - since they coparticipate in the media construction of reality-the authors consider MKOS to be genuine ideological and cultural mediators with the right and social responsibility to explicitly state the results of their "objectifiable" work (obtained through KO protocols and procedures determined by the media/company, classifications, thesauri, ontologies, etc.) and differentiate them from those of their political, ideological, cultural and, in sum, subjective stances. In order to achieve this, we propose the application of critical operators that should be followed by technical, collaborative and even technological actions geared to investing information systems with the capacity to consider those stances and allowing users to distinguish them. In short, it is the theoretical recognition of the subjective and biased presence of media knowledge organization operators in a job that is usually considered neutral, banal and even objective, and the initial development of tools for critical, self-critical, technical, and technological training keyed to its practical solution. This paper outlines the lines of work of a broader research study on the critical function of KO in the field of global media memory.

0.004325858 = product of:
  0.034606863 = sum of:
    0.034606863 = weight(_text_:work in 780) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034606863 = score(doc=780,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.2433148 = fieldWeight in 780, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=780)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

During the last century, the concept of reader-interest classifications and its related terminology have shown a well-established presence and commonly-agreed characteristics in the literature and other classification discourses. During the period 1952-1995, it was not unusual to find works, projects, and discourses using a common core of characteristics and terms to refer to a recognizable type of projects involving alternative classifications to the DDC and other traditional practices in libraries. However, although similar projects and characteristics are being used until the present day, such as those of implementation of BISAC in public libraries, the use of reader-interest classification-related terms and references have drastically declined since 1995. The present work attempts to overview the concept and terminology of reader-interest classifications in a historical perspective emphasizing the transformation of the concept and its remaining characteristics in time.

0.004325858 = product of:
  0.034606863 = sum of:
    0.034606863 = weight(_text_:work in 1158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034606863 = score(doc=1158,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.2433148 = fieldWeight in 1158, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1158)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Acknowledging the importance of classification not only for library and information science but also for the study and mapping of the world phenomena, in this paper we revisit and systematize the main types of classifications and focus on the species of classification mainly drawing on the work of S. R. Ranganathan. We trace the evolution of library classification systems by their structures and modes of design of various shades of classification systems and make a comparative study of enumerative and faceted species of library classifications. The value of this paper is to have a picture of the whole spectrum of existing classifications, which may serve for the study of future developments and constructions of new systems. This paper updates previous works by Comaromi and Ranganathan and is also theoretically inspired by them.

0.002883905 = product of:
  0.02307124 = sum of:
    0.02307124 = weight(_text_:work in 2321) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02307124 = score(doc=2321,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.16220987 = fieldWeight in 2321, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2321)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to discuss and shed light on the following questions: What is an author? Is it a person who writes? Or, is it, in information, an iconic taxonomic designation (some might say a "classification") for a group of writings that are recognized by the public in some particular way? What does it mean when a search engine, or catalog, asks a user to enter the name of an author? And how does that accord with the manner in which the data have been entered in association with the names of the entities identified with the concept of authorship? Design/methodology/approach - The authors use several cases as bases of phenomenological discourse analysis, combining as best the authors can components of eidetic bracketing (a Husserlian technique for isolating noetic reduction) with Foucauldian discourse analysis. The two approaches are not sympathetic or together cogent, so the authors present them instead as alternative explanations alongside empirical evidence. In this way the authors are able to isolate components of iconic "authorship" and then subsequently engage them in discourse. Findings - An "author" is an iconic name associated with a class of works. An "author" is a role in public discourse between a set of works and the culture that consumes them. An "author" is a role in cultural sublimation, or a power broker in deabstemiation. An "author" is last, if ever, a person responsible for the intellectual content of a published work. The library catalog's attribution of "author" is at odds with the Foucauldian discursive comprehension of the role of an "author." Originality/value - One of the main assets of this paper is the combination of Foucauldian discourse analysis with phenomenological analysis for the study of the "author." The authors turned to Foucauldian discourse analysis to discover the loci of power in the interactions of the public with the named authorial entities. The authors also looked to phenomenological analysis to consider the lived experience of users who encounter the same named authorial entities. The study of the "author" in this combined way facilitated the revelation of new aspects of the role of authorship in search engines and library catalogs.

0.002883905 = product of:
  0.02307124 = sum of:
    0.02307124 = weight(_text_:work in 3873) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02307124 = score(doc=3873,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.16220987 = fieldWeight in 3873, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3873)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This paper uses Hope Olson's concept of "the power to name" to explore the terminological practices of the LGBTQ community in the Cariri region of Brazil in the years between 2006 and 2013. LGBTQ communities can seize back the "power to name," traditionally exerted by a heteronormative society upon marginalized groups, by organizing their cultural and practical knowledge from within, and by exercising the power to name themselves and their specific domains and cultural practices. The study showed that knowledge organization - the act of defining entities and categories and assigning specific names to them - is a gesture of self-empowerment on many different levels. The "power of self-naming" in this LGBTQ community is a polyhedron in which some facets are frequent, such as the power to empower or affirm an identity. On the one hand, the names and categories break through gender, geographical and temporal specificity to embrace terms, names, and idioms drawn from a range of different countries, traditions, languages, and time periods. On the other hand, these names and categories work to reinforce and affirm the geographical and cultural specificity of the Cariri region itself, embedding its pride and self-affirmation within the varied languages and heteronormative history of Portuguese colonization in that region. In selecting terms and categories to name, organize and celebrate their identities, the LGBTQ people of Cariri have taken the power to name: not as information intermediaries striving for objectivity and neutrality, but as committed members of a marginalized but vital community.

0.002883905 = product of:
  0.02307124 = sum of:
    0.02307124 = weight(_text_:work in 3944) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02307124 = score(doc=3944,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.16220987 = fieldWeight in 3944, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3944)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to update and review the concept of warrant in Library and Information Science (LIS) and to introduce the concept of epistemic warrant from philosophy. Epistemic warrant can be used to assess the content of a work; and therefore, it can be a complement to existing warrants, such as literary warrant, in the development of controlled vocabularies. In this proposal, the authors aim to activate a theoretical discussion on warrant in order to revise and improve the validity of the concept of warrant from the user and classifier context to the classificationist context. Design/methodology/approach The authors have conducted an extensive literary review and close reading of the concept of warrant in LIS and knowledge organization in order to detect the different stances and gaps in which the concept of epistemic warrant might apply. The authors adopted an epistemological approach, in the vein of some of the previous commenters on warrant, such as Hope Olson and Birger Hjørland, and built upon the theoretical framework of different authors working with the concept of warrant outside knowledge organization, such as Alvin Plantinga and Alvin Goldman. Findings There are some authors and critics in the literature that have voiced for a more epistemological approach to warrant (in opposition to a predominantly ontological approach). In this sense, epistemic warrant would be an epistemological warrant and also a step forward toward pragmatism in a prominently empiricist context such as the justification of the inclusion of terms in a controlled vocabulary. Epistemic warrant can be used to complement literary warrant in the development of controlled vocabularies as well as in the classification of works. Originality/value This paper presents an exhaustive update and revision of the concept of warrant, analyzing, systematizing, and reviewing the different warrants discussed in the LIS literary warrant in a critical way. The concept of epistemic warrant for categorizational activities is introduced to the LIS field for the first time. This paper, and the proposal of epistemic warrant, has the potential to contribute to the theoretical and practical discussions on the development of controlled vocabularies and assessment of the content of works.

0.002883905 = product of:
  0.02307124 = sum of:
    0.02307124 = weight(_text_:work in 4139) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02307124 = score(doc=4139,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14223081 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03875087 = queryNorm
        0.16220987 = fieldWeight in 4139, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.6703904 = idf(docFreq=3060, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=4139)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Abstract

This paper uses Hope Olson's concept of "the power to name" to explore the terminological practices of the LGBTQ community in the Cariri region of Brazil in the years between 2006 and 2013. LGBTQ communities can seize back the "power to name," traditionally exerted by a heteronormative society upon marginalized groups, by organizing their cultural and practical knowledge from within and by exercising the power to name themselves and their specific domains and cultural practices. The study showed that knowledge organization-the act of defining entities and categories and assigning specific names to them-is a gesture of self-empowerment on many different levels. The "power of self-naming" in this LGBTQ community is a polyhedron in which some facets are frequent, such as the power to empower or affirm an identity. On the one hand, the names and categories break through gender, geographical and temporal specificity to embrace terms, names, and idioms drawn from a range of different countries, traditions, languages, and time periods. On the other hand, these names and categories work to reinforce and affirm the geographical and cultural specificity of the Cariri region itself, embedding its pride and self-affirmation within the varied languages and heteronormative history of Portuguese colonization in that region. In selecting terms and categories to name, organize, and celebrate their identities, the LGBTQ people of Cariri have taken the power to name: not as information intermediaries striving for objectivity and neutrality but as committed members of a marginalized but vital community.

0.0019688278 = product of:
  0.015750622 = sum of:
    0.015750622 = product of:
      0.031501245 = sum of:
        0.031501245 = weight(_text_:22 in 1409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031501245 = score(doc=1409,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1409, 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=1409)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

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

0.0019688278 = product of:
  0.015750622 = sum of:
    0.015750622 = product of:
      0.031501245 = sum of:
        0.031501245 = weight(_text_:22 in 2358) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031501245 = score(doc=2358,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 2358, 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=2358)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Date

17. 2.2018 16:50:22

0.00164069 = product of:
  0.01312552 = sum of:
    0.01312552 = product of:
      0.02625104 = sum of:
        0.02625104 = weight(_text_:22 in 1410) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02625104 = score(doc=1410,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.13569894 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03875087 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1410, 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=1410)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

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