Search (12 results, page 1 of 1)

0.057565745 = product of:
  0.14391436 = sum of:
    0.06188791 = weight(_text_:semantic in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.06188791 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.32156807 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
    0.08202645 = sum of:
      0.038127303 = weight(_text_:web in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.038127303 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04628742 = queryNorm
          0.25239927 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
      0.043899145 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.043899145 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.16209066 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.04628742 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 3494, 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=3494)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Pages

S.22-36

Source

Theorie, Semantik und Organisation von Wissen: Proceedings der 13. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und dem 13. Internationalen Symposium der Informationswissenschaft der Higher Education Association for Information Science (HI) Potsdam (19.-20.03.2013): 'Theory, Information and Organization of Knowledge' / Proceedings der 14. Tagung der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) und Natural Language & Information Systems (NLDB) Passau (16.06.2015): 'Lexical Resources for Knowledge Organization' / Proceedings des Workshops der Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) auf der SEMANTICS Leipzig (1.09.2014): 'Knowledge Organization and Semantic Web' / Proceedings des Workshops der Polnischen und Deutschen Sektion der Internationalen Gesellschaft für Wissensorganisation (ISKO) Cottbus (29.-30.09.2011): 'Economics of Knowledge Production and Organization'. Hrsg. von W. Babik, H.P. Ohly u. K. Weber

0.04683665 = product of:
  0.117091626 = sum of:
    0.040525187 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.040525187 = score(doc=2915,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 2915, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2915)
    0.076566435 = weight(_text_:semantic in 2915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.076566435 = score(doc=2915,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.39783734 = fieldWeight in 2915, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2915)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

The introduction (1.0) of this article considers the status of the thesaurus within LIS and asks about the future prospect for thesauri. The main following points are: (2.0) Any knowledge organization system (KOS) is today threatened by Google-like systems, and it is therefore important to consider if there still is a need for knowledge organization (KO) in the traditional sense. (3.0) A thesaurus is a somewhat reduced form of KOS compared to, for example, an ontology, and its "bundling" and restricted number of semantic relations has never been justified theoretically or empirically. Which semantic relations are most fruitful for a given task is thus an open question, and different domains may need different kinds of KOS including different sets of relations between terms. (4.0) A KOS is a controlled vocabulary (CV) and should not be considered a "perfect language" (Eco 1995) that is simply able to remove the ambiguity of natural language; rather much ambiguity in language represents a battle between many "voices" (Bakhtin 1981) or "paradigms" (Kuhn 1962). In this perspective, a specific KOS, e.g. a specific thesaurus, is just one "voice" among many voices, and that voice has to demonstrate its authority and utility. It is concluded (5.0) that the traditional thesaurus does not have a place in modern information retrieval, but that more flexible semantic tools based on proper studies of domains will always be important.

Content

Beitrag in einem Special issue: The Great Debate: "This House Believes that the Traditional Thesaurus has no Place in Modern Information Retrieval." [19 February 2015, 14:00-17:30 preceded by ISKO UK AGM and followed by networking, wine and nibbles; vgl.: http://www.iskouk.org/content/great-debate].

0.029195813 = product of:
  0.07298953 = sum of:
    0.057311267 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057311267 = score(doc=1398,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.40932083 = fieldWeight in 1398, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1398)
    0.015678266 = product of:
      0.031356532 = sum of:
        0.031356532 = weight(_text_:22 in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031356532 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16209066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1398, 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=1398)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

This paper considers classical bibliographic databases based on the Boolean retrieval model (for example MEDLINE and PsycInfo). This model is challenged by modern search engines and information retrieval (IR) researchers, who often consider Boolean retrieval as a less efficient approach. This speech examines this claim and argues for the continued value of Boolean systems, which implies two further issues: (1) the important role of human expertise in searching (expert searchers and "information literacy") and (2) the role of knowledge organization (KO) in the design and use of classical databases, including controlled vocabularies and human indexing. An underlying issue is the kind of retrieval system for which one should aim. It is suggested that Julian Warner's (2010) differentiation between the computer science traditions, aiming at automatically transforming queries into (ranked) sets of relevant documents, and an older library-orientated tradition aiming at increasing the "selection power" of users seems important. The Boolean retrieval model is important in order to provide users with the power to make informed searches and have full control over what is found and what is not found. These issues may also have important implications for the maintenance of information science and KO as research fields as well as for the information profession as a profession in its own right.

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

0.026977658 = product of:
  0.067444146 = sum of:
    0.048630223 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.048630223 = score(doc=4359,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 4359, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4359)
    0.01881392 = product of:
      0.03762784 = sum of:
        0.03762784 = weight(_text_:22 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03762784 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16209066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 4359, 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=4359)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Abstract

A recent study in information science (IS), raises important issues concerning the value of human indexing and basic theories of indexing and information retrieval, as well as the use of quantitative and qualitative approaches in IS and the underlying theories of knowledge informing the field. The present article uses L&E as the point of departure for demonstrating in what way more social and interpretative understandings may provide fruitful improvements for research in indexing, knowledge organization, and information retrieval. The artcle is motivated by the observation that philosophical contributions tend to be ignored in IS if they are not directly formed as criticisms or invitations to dialogs. It is part of the author's ongoing publication of articles about philosophical issues in IS and it is intended to be followed by analyzes of other examples of contributions to core issues in IS. Although it is formulated as a criticism of a specific paper, it should be seen as part of a general discussion of the philosophical foundation of IS and as a support to the emerging social paradigm in this field.

Date

17. 3.2011 19:22:55

0.015313287 = product of:
  0.076566435 = sum of:
    0.076566435 = weight(_text_:semantic in 2033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.076566435 = score(doc=2033,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.39783734 = fieldWeight in 2033, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2033)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Much of the literature of information science and knowledge organization has accepted and built upon Elaine Svenonius's (2004) claim that "paradigmatic relationships are those that are context-free, definitional, and true in all possible worlds" (p. 583). At the same time, the literature demonstrates a common understanding that paradigmatic relations are the kinds of semantic relations used in thesauri and other knowledge organization systems (including equivalence relations, hierarchical relations, and associative relations). This understanding is problematic and harmful because it directs attention away from the empirical and contextual basis for knowledge-organizing systems. Whether A is a kind of X is certainly not context-free and definitional in empirical sciences or in much everyday information. Semantic relations are theory-dependent and, in biology, for example, a scientific revolution has taken place in which many relations have changed following the new taxonomic paradigm named "cladism." This biological example is not an exception, but the norm. Semantic relations including paradigmatic relations are not a priori but are dependent on subject knowledge, scientific findings, and paradigms. As long as information scientists and knowledge organizers isolate themselves from subject knowledge, knowledge organization cannot possibly progress.

0.0114622535 = product of:
  0.057311267 = sum of:
    0.057311267 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.057311267 = score(doc=2124,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.40932083 = fieldWeight in 2124, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2124)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This paper considers classical bibliographic databases based on the Boolean retrieval model (such as MEDLINE and PsycInfo). This model is challenged by modern search engines and information retrieval (IR) researchers, who often consider Boolean retrieval a less efficient approach. The paper examines this claim and argues for the continued value of Boolean systems, and suggests two further considerations: (a) the important role of human expertise in searching (expert searchers and "information literate" users) and (b) the role of library and information science and knowledge organization (KO) in the design and use of classical databases. An underlying issue is the kind of retrieval system for which one should aim. Warner's (2010) differentiation between the computer science traditions and an older library-oriented tradition seems important; the former aim to transform queries automatically into (ranked) sets of relevant documents, whereas the latter aims to increase the "selection power" of users. The Boolean retrieval model is valuable in providing users with the power to make informed searches and have full control over what is found and what is not. These issues may have significant implications for the maintenance of information science and KO as research fields as well as for the information profession as a profession in its own right.

0.011347052 = product of:
  0.05673526 = sum of:
    0.05673526 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05673526 = score(doc=1853,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.40520695 = fieldWeight in 1853, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1853)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Scholars have uncovered abundant data about the history of the term "information," as well as some of its many combined phrases (e.g., "information science," "information retrieval," and "information technology"). Many other compounds that involve "information" seem, however, not to have a known origin yet. In this article, further information about the phrase "information storage and retrieval" is provided. Knowing the history of terms and their associated concepts is an important prescription against poor terminological phrasing and theoretical confusion.

0.00884113 = product of:
  0.04420565 = sum of:
    0.04420565 = weight(_text_:semantic in 2710) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04420565 = score(doc=2710,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.22969149 = fieldWeight in 2710, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2710)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Knowledge organization (KO) and bibliometrics have traditionally been seen as separate subfields of library and information science, but bibliometric techniques make it possible to identify candidate terms for thesauri and to organize knowledge by relating scientific papers and authors to each other and thereby indicating kinds of relatedness and semantic distance. It is therefore important to view bibliometric techniques as a family of approaches to KO in order to illustrate their relative strengths and weaknesses. The subfield of bibliometrics concerned with citation analysis forms a distinct approach to KO which is characterized by its social, historical and dynamic nature, its close dependence on scholarly literature and its explicit kind of literary warrant. The two main methods, co-citation analysis and bibliographic coupling represent different things and thus neither can be considered superior for all purposes. The main difference between traditional knowledge organization systems (KOSs) and maps based on citation analysis is that the first group represents intellectual KOSs, whereas the second represents social KOSs. For this reason bibliometric maps cannot be expected ever to be fully equivalent to scholarly taxonomies, but they are - along with other forms of KOSs - valuable tools for assisting users' to orient themselves to the information ecology. Like other KOSs, citation-based maps cannot be neutral but will always be based on researchers' decisions, which tend to favor certain interests and views at the expense of others.

0.00884113 = product of:
  0.04420565 = sum of:
    0.04420565 = weight(_text_:semantic in 4651) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04420565 = score(doc=4651,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.22969149 = fieldWeight in 4651, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4651)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

It is argued that data should be defined as information on properties of units of analysis. Epistemologically it is important to establish that what is considered data by somebody need not be data for somebody else. This article considers the nature of data and "big data" and the relation between data, information, knowledge and documents. It is common for all these concepts that they are about phenomena produced in specific contexts for specific purposes and may be represented in documents, including as representations in databases. In that process, they are taken out of their original contexts and put into new ones and thereby data loses some or all their meaning due to the principle of semantic holism. Some of this lost meaning should be reestablished in the databases and the representations of data/documents cannot be understood as a neutral activity, but as an activity supporting the overall goal implicit in establishing the database. To utilize (big) data (as it is the case with utilizing information, knowledge and documents) demands first of all the identification of the potentials of these data for relevant purposes. The most fruitful theoretical frame for knowledge organization and data science is the social epistemology suggested by Shera (1951). One important aspect about big data is that they are often unintentional traces we leave during all kinds of activities. Their potential to inform somebody about something is therefore less direct compared to data that have been produced intentionally as, for example, scientific databases.

0.004679445 = product of:
  0.023397226 = sum of:
    0.023397226 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3326) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.023397226 = score(doc=3326,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 3326, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3326)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

In 1975 Tefko Saracevic declared the subject knowledge view to be the most fundamental perspective of relevance. This paper examines the assumptions in different views of relevance, including the system's view and the user's view and offers a reinterpretation of these views. The paper finds that what was regarded as the most fundamental view by Saracevic in 1975 has not since been considered (with very few exceptions). Other views, which are based on less fruitful assumptions, have dominated the discourse on relevance in information retrieval and information science. Many authors have reexamined the concept of relevance in information science, but have neglected the subject knowledge view, hence basic theoretical assumptions seem not to have been properly addressed. It is as urgent now as it was in 1975 seriously to consider the subject knowledge view of relevance (which may also be termed the epistemological view). The concept of relevance, like other basic concepts, is influenced by overall approaches to information science, such as the cognitive view and the domain-analytic view. There is today a trend toward a social paradigm for information science. This paper offers an understanding of relevance from such a social point of view.

0.0032680542 = product of:
  0.01634027 = sum of:
    0.01634027 = product of:
      0.03268054 = sum of:
        0.03268054 = weight(_text_:web in 639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03268054 = score(doc=639,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 639, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=639)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

Are the terms information organization (IO), organization of information (OI) and information architecture (IA) synonyms for knowledge organization (KO)? This study uses bibliometric methods, among others, to determine some relations between these terms and their meanings. Apparently the data shows that these terms should not be considered synonyms because each of the terms IO, OI, IA and KO produce a different set of high ranked authors, journals and papers. In many cases the terms are, however, used interchangeably (and thus indicating synonymity) and it is argued that the underlying theoretical principles are identical but that the different terms tend to be applied in different contexts: KO in the library context; IA in the web-context and IO and OI in more unspecified ways.

0.0031356532 = product of:
  0.015678266 = sum of:
    0.015678266 = product of:
      0.031356532 = sum of:
        0.031356532 = weight(_text_:22 in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031356532 = score(doc=629,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16209066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 629, 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=629)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 2.2013 11:49:13