Search (9 results, page 1 of 1)

0.015815495 = product of:
  0.079077475 = sum of:
    0.079077475 = weight(_text_:semantic in 160) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.079077475 = score(doc=160,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.41088465 = fieldWeight in 160, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=160)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

An argument that information exists at different levels of analysis-syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic-and an exploration of the implications. Although this is the Information Age, there is no universal agreement about what information really is. Different disciplines view information differently; engineers, computer scientists, economists, linguists, and philosophers all take varying and apparently disconnected approaches. In this book, Antonio Badia distinguishes four levels of analysis brought to bear on information: syntactic, semantic, pragmatic, and network-based. Badia explains each of these theoretical approaches in turn, discussing, among other topics, theories of Claude Shannon and Andrey Kolomogorov, Fred Dretske's description of information flow, and ideas on receiver impact and informational interactions. Badia argues that all these theories describe the same phenomena from different perspectives, each one narrower than the previous one. The syntactic approach is the more general one, but it fails to specify when information is meaningful to an agent, which is the focus of the semantic and pragmatic approaches. The network-based approach, meanwhile, provides a framework to understand information use among agents. Badia then explores the consequences of understanding information as existing at several levels. Humans live at the semantic and pragmatic level (and at the network level as a society), computers at the syntactic level. This sheds light on some recent issues, including "fake news" (computers cannot tell whether a statement is true or not, because truth is a semantic notion) and "algorithmic bias" (a pragmatic, not syntactic concern). Humans, not computers, the book argues, have the ability to solve these issues.

0.01560542 = product of:
  0.03901355 = sum of:
    0.026470939 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026470939 = score(doc=566,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.18905719 = fieldWeight in 566, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=566)
    0.012542613 = product of:
      0.025085226 = sum of:
        0.025085226 = weight(_text_:22 in 566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025085226 = score(doc=566,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16209066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 566, 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=566)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.4 = coord(2/5)

Content

Section 1 Context and purpose of knowledge architecture -- 1 Making the case for knowledge architecture -- 2 The landscape of knowledge assets -- 3 Knowledge architecture and design -- 4 Knowledge architecture reference model -- 5 Knowledge architecture segments -- Section 2 Designing for availability -- 6 Knowledge object modeling -- 7 Knowledge structures for encoding, formatting, and packaging -- 8 Functional architecture for identification and distinction -- 9 Functional architectures for knowledge asset disposition and destruction -- 10 Functional architecture designs for knowledge preservation and conservation -- Section 3 Designing for accessibility -- 11 Functional architectures for knowledge seeking and discovery -- 12 Functional architecture for knowledge search -- 13 Functional architecture for knowledge categorization -- 14 Functional architectures for indexing and keywording -- 15 Functional architecture for knowledge semantics -- 16 Functional architecture for knowledge abstraction and surrogation -- Section 4 Functional architectures to support knowledge consumption -- 17 Functional architecture for knowledge augmentation, derivation, and synthesis -- 18 Functional architecture to manage risk and harm -- 19 Functional architectures for knowledge authentication and provenance -- 20 Functional architectures for securing knowledge assets -- 21 Functional architectures for authorization and asset management -- Section 5 Pulling it all together - the big picture knowledge architecture -- 22 Functional architecture for knowledge metadata and metainformation -- 23 The whole knowledge architecture - pulling it all together

LCSH

Information storage and retrieval systems / Management

Subject

Information storage and retrieval systems / Management

0.009169802 = product of:
  0.04584901 = sum of:
    0.04584901 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 158) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04584901 = score(doc=158,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.32745665 = fieldWeight in 158, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=158)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

This book contributes to discussions within Information Retrieval and Science (IR&S) by improving our conceptual understanding of the relationship between humans and technology. A call to redirect the intellectual focus of information retrieval and science (IR&S) toward the phenomenon of technology-mediated experience. In this book, Sachi Arafat and Elham Ashoori issue a call to reorient the intellectual focus of information retrieval and science (IR&S) away from search and related processes toward the more general phenomenon of technology-mediated experience. Technology-mediated experience accounts for an increasing proportion of human lived experience; the phenomenon of mediation gets at the heart of the human-machine relationship. Framing IR&S more broadly in this way generalizes its problems and perspectives, dovetailing them with those shared across disciplines dealing with socio-technical phenomena. This reorientation of IR&S requires imagining it as a new kind of science: a science of technology-mediated experience (STME). Arafat and Ashoori not only offer detailed analysis of the foundational concepts underlying IR&S and other technical disciplines but also boldly call for a radical, systematic appropriation of the sciences and humanities to create a better understanding of the human-technology relationship. Arafat and Ashoori discuss the notion of progress in IR&S and consider ideas of progress from the history and philosophy of science. They argue that progress in IR&S requires explicit linking between technical and nontechnical aspects of discourse. They develop a network of basic questions and present a discursive framework for addressing these questions. With this book, Arafat and Ashoori provide both a manifesto for the reimagining of their field and the foundations on which a reframed IR&S would rest.

Content

The embedding of the foundational in the adhoc -- Notions of progress in information retrieval -- From growth to progress I : methodology for understanding progress -- From growth to progress II : the network of discourse -- Basic questions characterising foundations discourse -- Enduring nature of foundations -- Foundations as the way to the authoritative against the authoritarian : a conclusion

LCSH

Information retrieval

Subject

Information retrieval

0.005294188 = product of:
  0.026470939 = sum of:
    0.026470939 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2785) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026470939 = score(doc=2785,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.18905719 = fieldWeight in 2785, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2785)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

LCSH

Information storage and retrieval systems

Subject

Information storage and retrieval systems

0.004052519 = product of:
  0.020262593 = sum of:
    0.020262593 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4320) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.020262593 = score(doc=4320,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.14471677 = fieldWeight in 4320, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4320)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Footnote

Rez. in: BuB 56(2004) H.12, S.743 (H, Meinhardt): "1987 erstmals erschienen und seitdem ein Klassiker unter den Lehrbüchern im Feld der Information Science, liegt nunmehr die dritte, deutlich veränderte Auflage vor. Notwendig geworden war die Überarbeitung vor allem durch die Dynamik im Bereich der Informationstechnologien und deren Auswirkungen sowohl auf die Praxis der Informationsspezialisten wie auch die Disziplin selber. Augenfälligste Veränderung ist denn auch ein neues Kapitel zu »Internet und Informationswissenschaft«. »Chemical librarians« Zunächst einige Worte zu den Autoren, die dem einen oder anderen vielleicht nicht bekannt sind: Brian C. Vickery und Alina Vickery sind beide von ihrer Ausbildung her Chemiker und waren als Ehepartner (Alina Vickery starb Ende 2001) auch beruflich vielfältig gemeinsam tätig. Wie viele Chemiker (man denke nur Eugene Garfield, den Begründer der modernen Szientometrie) sensibilisiert für den Umgang mit enormen Informationsmengen und damit Informationsproblemen, zudem als »chemical librarian« (Brian C. Vickery) und Mitarbeiter von chemischen Fachzeitschriften auch professionell beschäftigt mit Fragen des Fachinformationstransfers, haben sie sich (insbesondere Brian C. Vickery) frühzeitig und kontinuierlich informationswissenschaftlich betätigt. Resultat ist eine Fülle von Publikationen, vor allem zu den Bereichen Indexieren, Klassifizieren, Information Retrieval, auch zur Geschichte der wissenschaftlichen Kommunikation (alle Arbeiten sind im Anhang aufgelistet). Brian C. Vickery war außerdem, das dürfte für Bibliothekare von Interesse sein, als Deputy beim Aufbau der National Lending Library for Science and Technology (NLLST) in Boston Spa beteiligt, die ihre Arbeit 1961 aufnahm und 1973 mit in die neu gegründete British Library einging. Und es sei hier schon vorab bemerkt, dass der immer wiederkehrende Bezug von informationswissenschaftlichen Fragestellungen auf die bibliothekarische Praxis ein Vorzug dieses Buches ist.
Ungewohnte Einordnung und Gewichtung Von der Konzeption her ist das Buch am ehesten als eine Art einführendes Handbuch zu beschreiben, das sehr stark Querschnittscharakter hat. Dem entspricht die inhaltlich weit gespannte Gliederung, die die meisten informationswissenschaftlichen Bereiche streift. Die Autoren verfolgen explizit nicht das Ziel, eine Art Manual für die Informationspraxis oder für das Informationsmanagement vorzulegen, sondern versprechen einen Mix aus theoretischer Annäherung und praxisorientierter Handreichung - und enttäuschen damit nicht. Der deutsche Leser, der mit hiesigen Lehrbüchern zur Informationswissenschaft nicht gerade verwöhnt ist und sich in aller Regel aus vielen Quellen Puzzleartig sein Bild von »Informationswissenschaft« zusammenstoppeln muss (eine nach wie vor rühmliche Ausnahme sind die mehrbändigen »Grundlagen der praktischen Information und Dokumentation«, deren Neuauflage gerade erschienen sind), wird vieles, allerdings in ungewohnter Einordnung und Gewichtung, hier gesammelt vorfinden. Im Einzelnen gehen Vickery auf folgende Bereiche ein: Information und Gesellschaft, Informationstransfer in natürlichen, sozialen, maschinellen Umgebungen, Besonderheiten und Ausprägungen menschlicher Kommunikation und Informationsbedürfnisse, das gesamte Gebiet des Information Retrieval, Wissensrepräsentation, Informationsvermittlung, Informationssysteme und deren Evaluation, Internet und Informationswissenschaft.
Soziologisch geprägt Das alles auf nicht einmal 350 Seiten: Hier kann es also immer nur um ein »Anreißen« gehen, was sich immer wieder, zum Beispiel in den Abschnitten zu Information Retrieval oder zu Formen der Wissensrepräsentation, schmerzhaft bemerkbar macht. Auf Klassifikationen, Thesauri, Formen des Abstracting und so weiter wird so gut wie nicht eingegangen. Hier ist generell zu fragen, ob die Gewichtung, die die Autoren vornehmen, sinnvoll ist. Ihr Ansatz, Informationswissenschaft zu beschreiben als »the study of the communication of information in sociery«, ist ein sehr weiter und findet seinen Niederschlag in überdimensionierten Abschnitten, die stark soziologisch geprägt sind, ohne wirklich erhellend zu sein; dazu sind die Aussagen, zum Beispiel zu Reichweiten von Kommunikation oder zu verschiedenen Kommunikationstypen, zu allgemein. Bedeutsamer, da dieser umfassende Ansatz überhaupt nicht durchgehalten wird, sondern sich immer stärker verengt hin auf Kommunikation von wissenschaftlicher Information, ist jedoch, dass auch dieses Buch letztlich den Eindruck hinterlässt, Informationswissenschaft sei ein Konglomerat miteinander relativ unverbundener Theorien und Bausteine. Dieser Eindruck, der sich beim Lesen auch deshalb immer wieder aufdrängt, weil sowohl die historische EntwicklungderDisziplin nur sehr verknappt (generell USA-zentriert) wie auch die Abgrenzung/Überschneidungzu anderen Wissenschaften wenig thematisiert wird (ganz stark spürbarim Kapitel 3 »Widercontexts of information transfer«), mildert sich etwas durch die sehr verdienstvolle Auflistung von bekannten Informationsspezialisten im Anhang und die Visualisierung der Informationswissenschaft, ihrer Zweige und bedeutender Vertreter, in Form einer Art »Landkarte«.

0.003743556 = product of:
  0.01871778 = sum of:
    0.01871778 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3137) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01871778 = score(doc=3137,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.14001551 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 3137, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3137)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Abstract

"Thomson Reuters' citation indexes i.e. SCI, SSCI and AHCI are said to be "authoritative". Due to the huge influence of these databases on global academic evaluation of productivity and impact, Terje Tüür-Fröhlich decided to conduct case studies on the data quality of Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) records. Tüür-Fröhlich investigated articles from social science and law. The main findings: SSCI records contain tremendous amounts of "trivial errors", not only misspellings and typos as previously mentioned in bibliometrics and scientometrics literature. But Tüür-Fröhlich's research documented fatal errors which have not been mentioned in the scientometrics literature yet at all. Tüür-Fröhlich found more than 80 fatal mutations and mutilations of Pierre Bourdieu (e.g. "Atkinson" or "Pierre, B. and "Pierri, B."). SSCI even generated zombie references (phantom authors and works) by data fields' confusion - a deadly sin for a database producer - as fragments of Patent Laws were indexed as fictional author surnames/initials. Additionally, horrific OCR-errors (e.g. "nuxure" instead of "Nature" as journal title) were identified. Tüür-Fröhlich´s extensive quantitative case study of an article of the Harvard Law Review resulted in a devastating finding: only 1% of all correct references from the original article were indexed by SSCI without any mistake or error. Many scientific communication experts and database providers' believe that errors in databanks are of less importance: There are many errors, yes - but they would counterbalance each other, errors would not result in citation losses and would not bear any effect on retrieval and evaluation outcomes. Terje Tüür-Fröhlich claims the contrary: errors and inconsistencies are not evenly distributed but linked with languages biases and publication cultures."

0.003536452 = product of:
  0.01768226 = sum of:
    0.01768226 = weight(_text_:semantic in 210) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01768226 = score(doc=210,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.19245663 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.04628742 = queryNorm
        0.091876596 = fieldWeight in 210, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1578603 = idf(docFreq=1879, maxDocs=44218)
          0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=210)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Series

Content and communication: Terminology, language resources and semantic interoperability; Bd.2

0.0031356532 = product of:
  0.015678266 = sum of:
    0.015678266 = product of:
      0.031356532 = sum of:
        0.031356532 = weight(_text_:22 in 1935) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031356532 = score(doc=1935,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16209066 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1935, 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=1935)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Date

22. 6.2008 13:03:30

0.002178703 = product of:
  0.010893514 = sum of:
    0.010893514 = product of:
      0.021787029 = sum of:
        0.021787029 = weight(_text_:web in 568) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021787029 = score(doc=568,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15105948 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.04628742 = queryNorm
            0.14422815 = fieldWeight in 568, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=568)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.2 = coord(1/5)

Series

Reihe Web 2.0