Search (5 results, page 1 of 1)

0.01763814 = product of:
  0.10582883 = sum of:
    0.10582883 = weight(_text_:relationship in 2517) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10582883 = score(doc=2517,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.46164837 = fieldWeight in 2517, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2517)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In the global learning society, we need to understand how knowledge is transferred within one field and among different fields. In addition, we need to know how to create an atmosphere of tolerance for different points of view. One way of achieving understanding between different cultures and from different vantage points within the same culture is to study the relationship(s) between theory and practice. For this purpose, it is useful to understand the relationship(s) among ideas, how initial ideas migrate into practice and back into theory, and how "best practices" are identified and become widespread. In this paper, knowledge organization systems are used as examples of how knowledge organization systems are created, how knowledge of the systems may be disseminated, and how that new knowledge is integrated into accepted theory and practice. This examination provides clues about the development of theories and practices that can enhance the contributions knowledge organization systems make to the global learning society.

0.01222006 = product of:
  0.07332036 = sum of:
    0.07332036 = weight(_text_:relationship in 1138) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07332036 = score(doc=1138,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.31983936 = fieldWeight in 1138, 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=1138)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

In a changing information environment, we need to reassess each element of bibliographic control, including classification theories and systems. Every classification system is a theoretical construct imposed an "reality." The classificatory relationships that are assumed to be valuable have generally received less attention than the topics included in the systems. Relationships are functions of both the syntactic and semantic axes of classification systems, and both explicit and implicit relationships are discussed. Examples are drawn from a number of different systems, both bibliographic and non-bibliographic, and the cultural warrant (i. e., the sociocultural context) of classification systems is examined. The part-whole relationship is discussed as an example of a universally valid concept that is treated as a component of the cultural warrant of a classification system.

0.010183383 = product of:
  0.061100297 = sum of:
    0.061100297 = weight(_text_:relationship in 3487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.061100297 = score(doc=3487,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.2292412 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.824759 = idf(docFreq=964, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.26653278 = fieldWeight in 3487, 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=3487)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Abstract

This paper argues that the semantic axis of bibliographic classification systems can be found in the various warrants that have been used to justify the utility of classification systems. Classificationists, theorists, and critics have emphasized the syntactic aspects of classification theories and systems, but a number of semantic warrants can be identified. The evolution of four semantic warrants is traced through the development of twentieth-century classification theory: literary warrant, scientific/philosophical warrant, educational warrant, and cultural warrant. It is concluded that further examination of semantic warrants might make possible a rationalized approach to the creation of classification systems for particular uses. The attention of scholars on faceted schemes and classificatory structures had heretofore pulled our attention to the syntactic aspects (e.g., concept division and citation order), with semantics being considered more or less a question of the terms and their relationships and somewhat taken for granted, or at least construed as a unitary aspect. Attention is on the choice of the classes and their meaning, as well as their connection to the world, and not so much on their syntactic relationship. This notion is developed by providing an historical and conceptual overview of the various kinds of warrant discernible in working with bibliographic systems. In Beghtol's definition, warrant concerns more than just the selection of terms, but rather the mapping of a classification system to the context and uses.

0.008583232 = product of:
  0.05149939 = sum of:
    0.05149939 = weight(_text_:22 in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05149939 = score(doc=5830,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5830, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5830)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Date

5. 8.2006 13:22:08

0.00536452 = product of:
  0.03218712 = sum of:
    0.03218712 = weight(_text_:22 in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03218712 = score(doc=3483,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16638419 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
          0.047513504 = queryNorm
        0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3483, 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=3483)
  0.16666667 = coord(1/6)

Pages

S.19-22