Search (38 results, page 1 of 2)

  • × author_ss:"Smiraglia, R.P."
  1. Smiraglia, R.P.: Classification interaction demonstrated empirically (2014) 0.01
    0.005567615 = product of:
      0.01948665 = sum of:
        0.0047638514 = product of:
          0.023819257 = sum of:
            0.023819257 = weight(_text_:system in 1420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.023819257 = score(doc=1420,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03622214 = queryNorm
                0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 1420, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1420)
          0.2 = coord(1/5)
        0.0147228 = product of:
          0.0294456 = sum of:
            0.0294456 = weight(_text_:22 in 1420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0294456 = score(doc=1420,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03622214 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1420, 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=1420)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    
    Abstract
    There is greater depth in knowledge organization systems beyond the surface of hierarchically-structured concepts. Deconstructed elements of a knowledge organization system share network-like relationships that might be used in interaction with the characteristics of documents to provide "classification interaction" as a means of identifying previously undiscovered relationships. A random sample of UDC call numbers from the online catalog of the Catholic University of Leuven (KU Leuven) is analyzed to discover interactions among conceptual classification, instantiation, and bibliographic demographic characteristics. The associations demonstrated represent ways in which predictable interactions occur among classified bibliographic entities and the components of the rich UDC classification.
    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
  2. Smiraglia, R.P.: On sameness and difference : an editorial (2008) 0.00
    0.0039332197 = product of:
      0.013766268 = sum of:
        0.0076317685 = product of:
          0.01907942 = sum of:
            0.00915473 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.00915473 = score(doc=1919,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03622214 = queryNorm
                0.08355226 = fieldWeight in 1919, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1919)
            0.00992469 = weight(_text_:system in 1919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.00992469 = score(doc=1919,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03622214 = queryNorm
                0.08699492 = fieldWeight in 1919, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1919)
          0.4 = coord(2/5)
        0.0061345003 = product of:
          0.0122690005 = sum of:
            0.0122690005 = weight(_text_:22 in 1919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0122690005 = score(doc=1919,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03622214 = queryNorm
                0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 1919, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1919)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.2857143 = coord(2/7)
    
    Content
    2. Collocation versus disambiguation Of course, the practical reality is that systems must accommodate dual purposes when they declare entities to be the same or different. We wish at once to collocate or draw together everything that is alike, and at the same time to disambiguate the collocated set. So, the tension between the two purposes holds every system in balance. A set of collocated entities is thought to contain entities that are the same to some degree, but different enough to require an approach to sorting the elements of the set. It reminds me again of Wilson, who said of relevance that sometimes people just want something that serves as a means to some end. What does that suggest about sameness and difference? Perhaps that "more or less the same" or "a little bit different" reveals a sort of fuzzy-set, which opens the brackets around the set of equivalent entities that have been collocated. If so, then it means all the more that the differences, no matter how slight, need to be accounted for in the disambiguation. Of course there is quite a lot of overlap among domains, especially among closely related domains. We can see that in the articles in the present issue of this journal. We have papers that have come from at least three domains, and yet they all treat of knowledge and its conceptual ordering. Yet there is little conformity among the works cited by these four papers. What does that tell us? Perhaps that different domains are a little bit the same?
    3. A New Perspective: Theme and Variations In musicology there is a factual reality that every sound you hear can be reduced to a sort of calculus that expresses its tonal and metrical relationships. Schenkerian analysis (Forte and Gilbert 1982) is one approach to this. In the end it reveals a singular truth, which is that music (like information) is essentially an ordered accretion of energy. The beauty of this type of analysis is what it reveals when large quantities of music are analyzed-it reveals sets of similarities that might never have been noticed otherwise. The music information retrieval domain has built its technology and its science along these lines. So where does this leave knowledge organization? In the semantic Web and the magical kingdoms that will follow it, it will be necessary to make samenessdifference decisions of a different sort, to provide the ability to make heretofore unimaginable connections. Elsewhere I have asked when a funeral urn is like a ship's log: the answer is when the instantiation set has the same calculus in its scope, which tells us that the two artifacts have approximately equal impact factors along some cultural or social trajectory. These are the sorts of questions knowledge organization can be able to answer if we can move toward a large base of empirical evidence to which similarity measures can be applied and from which new hypotheses can be drawn to direct investigation. Why have these questions not yet been answered? Because they have not yet been posed."
    Date
    12. 6.2008 20:18:22
  3. Smiraglia, R.P.: ¬The progress of theory in knowledge organization (2002) 0.00
    0.002650327 = product of:
      0.018552288 = sum of:
        0.018552288 = product of:
          0.04638072 = sum of:
            0.01830946 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 811) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.01830946 = score(doc=811,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03622214 = queryNorm
                0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 811, 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=811)
            0.028071264 = weight(_text_:system in 811) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.028071264 = score(doc=811,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03622214 = queryNorm
                0.24605882 = fieldWeight in 811, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=811)
          0.4 = coord(2/5)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    
    Abstract
    We understand "theory" to be a system of testable explanatory statements derived from research. In knowledge organization, the generation of theory has moved from an epistemic stance of pragmatism (based on observation of the construction of retrieval tools), to empiricism (based on the results of empirical research). In the nineteenth century, Panizzi (1841), Cutter (1876), and Dewey (1876), developed very pragmatic tools (i.e., catalogs and classifications), explaining as they did so the principles by which their tools were constructed. By 1950, key papers at a University of Chicago Graduate Library School conference on "Bibliographic Organization" recorded the role of bibliographic organization in civilization (Clapp, 1950) and deemed classification the basis of bibliographic organization (Shera, 1950). In 1961, the International Conference on Cataloguing Principles in Paris brought together key thinkers on the design of catalogs. Wilson (1968) expounded a system for bibliographic apparatus, and provided the framework for empirical theoretical development. In 2000, Svenonius asserted that knowledge organization is accomplished through a bibliographic language (or, more properly through a complex set of bibliographic languages), with semantics, syntax, pragmatics, and rules to govern their implementation. Logical positivism notwithstanding, rationalist and historicist stances have begun to come to the fore of late through the promulgation of qualitative methods, most notably those employed in classification, user-interface design, and bibliometric research.
  4. Smiraglia, R.P.; Lee, H.-L.: Rethinking the authorship principle (2012) 0.00
    0.0026166062 = product of:
      0.018316243 = sum of:
        0.018316243 = product of:
          0.045790605 = sum of:
            0.02197135 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.02197135 = score(doc=5575,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03622214 = queryNorm
                0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 5575, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5575)
            0.023819257 = weight(_text_:system in 5575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.023819257 = score(doc=5575,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03622214 = queryNorm
                0.20878783 = fieldWeight in 5575, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5575)
          0.4 = coord(2/5)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    
    Abstract
    The fundamental principle of order in the library catalogue is the authorship principle, which serves as the organizing node of an alphabetico-classed system, in which "texts" of "works" are organized first alphabetically by uniform title of the progenitor work and then are subarranged using titles for variant instantiations, under the heading for an "author." We analyze case studies of entries from (1) the first documented imperial library catalogue, the Seven Epitomes (Qilue [??]), in China; (2) Abelard's Works, which featured prominently in the 1848 testimony of Antonio Panizzi; and (3) The French Chef and the large family of instantiated works associated with it. Our analysis shows that the catalogue typically contains many large superwork sets. A more pragmatic approach to the design of catalogues is to array descriptions of resources in relation to the superwork sets to which they might belong. In all cases, a multidimensional faceted arrangement incorporating ideational nodes from the universe of recorded knowledge holds promise for greatly enhanced retrieval capability.
  5. Beak, J.; Smiraglia, R.P.: Contours of knowledge : core and granularity in the evolution of the DCMI domain (2014) 0.00
    0.0021032572 = product of:
      0.0147228 = sum of:
        0.0147228 = product of:
          0.0294456 = sum of:
            0.0294456 = weight(_text_:22 in 1415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0294456 = score(doc=1415,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03622214 = queryNorm
                0.23214069 = fieldWeight in 1415, 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=1415)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    
    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
  6. Leazer, G.H.; Smiraglia, R.P.: Bibliographic families in the library catalog : a qualitative analysis and grounded theory (1999) 0.00
    0.0017527144 = product of:
      0.0122690005 = sum of:
        0.0122690005 = product of:
          0.024538001 = sum of:
            0.024538001 = weight(_text_:22 in 107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.024538001 = score(doc=107,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03622214 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 107, 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=107)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    
    Date
    10. 9.2000 17:38:22
  7. Smiraglia, R.P.: Shifting intension in knowledge organization : an editorial (2012) 0.00
    0.0017527144 = product of:
      0.0122690005 = sum of:
        0.0122690005 = product of:
          0.024538001 = sum of:
            0.024538001 = weight(_text_:22 in 630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.024538001 = score(doc=630,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03622214 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 630, 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=630)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    
    Date
    22. 2.2013 11:09:49
  8. Smiraglia, R.P.: ISKO 12's bookshelf - evolving intension : an editorial (2013) 0.00
    0.0017527144 = product of:
      0.0122690005 = sum of:
        0.0122690005 = product of:
          0.024538001 = sum of:
            0.024538001 = weight(_text_:22 in 636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.024538001 = score(doc=636,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03622214 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 636, 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=636)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    
    Date
    22. 2.2013 11:43:34
  9. Graf, A.M.; Smiraglia, R.P.: Race & ethnicity in the Encyclopedia of Milwaukee : a case study in the use of domain analysis (2014) 0.00
    0.0017527144 = product of:
      0.0122690005 = sum of:
        0.0122690005 = product of:
          0.024538001 = sum of:
            0.024538001 = weight(_text_:22 in 1412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.024538001 = score(doc=1412,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03622214 = queryNorm
                0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1412, 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=1412)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    
    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
  10. Smiraglia, R.P.: Curating and virtual shelves : an editorial (2006) 0.00
    0.0014732085 = product of:
      0.010312459 = sum of:
        0.010312459 = product of:
          0.025781147 = sum of:
            0.015856456 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.015856456 = score(doc=409,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03622214 = queryNorm
                0.14471677 = fieldWeight in 409, 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=409)
            0.00992469 = weight(_text_:system in 409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.00992469 = score(doc=409,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03622214 = queryNorm
                0.08699492 = fieldWeight in 409, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=409)
          0.4 = coord(2/5)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    
    Content
    "Actions have consequences, and this is certainly true of knowledge organization. One reason our colleague Birger Hjoerland (1998) urges epistemological analysis for the problems of information science is that resources might well serve many different purposes for different users, and thus different user groups might have different epistemological relationships with resources. There is a difference between consulting a dictionary for a definition, reading a text for comprehension to increase your knowledge base, reading for pleasure (which, evidently boosts certain endorphins), and synthesizing a scientific report to generate an hypothesis, just to generate a few scenarios. The only commonality in that list is the consultation of a resource. In each case the purpose dictates the activity and is reliant upon a different epistemological aim. No online source of facts is going to suffice if I want something to read that will give me pleasure; no catalog of fine literature is sufficient for the extraction of scientific theory. Hjoerland also suggests that the names we give - to documents, to categories, even to activities - embodies the action of naming, and thereby also the action of facilitating or obfuscating the use of named resources (Hjoerland 2003, 98). Terminology cannot be neutral because the very selection of terms as names either provides a pathway to understanding or a barrier to usage, depending on the epistemological perspective of the user group. I won't go looking for Miss Marple in your dictionary if you call it a dictionary, even though it might contain a perfectly fine list of motives for murder. Likewise, as an information scientist I am not likely to look for research anywhere except in a database that purports to contain peer-reviewed scientific literature. Names have power, and the action of naming is powerful too. We in knowledge organization need to be aware that no matter how elegant our science, the actions based on our research have consequences. A model generated empirically might make an excellent explanation of a specific reality, but if it migrates into the structure of a system for knowledge organization it has the power to help or hinder assignment to categories, not to mention retrieval from those categories.
    An important aspect of what we do is facilitating the curatorial aspect of information retrieval or librarianship. What I mean is that our job is not merely to "mark and park," as generations of catalogers famously have said of both resource description and classification, or even to generate parking spaces (to press my metaphor), but rather our job is to place each entity in the best category, each artifact in the best environment, each resource on the best "shelf" to enhance its usability should it actually be sought for retrieval. Hope Olson (2002) has also written about the limits we create when we exercise the power to name. We must be aware of the consequences of our science. In librarianship in the United States at the moment there is a fair amount of hand-wringing about the future, and this anxiety has been fed by the report of Karen Calhoun on the changing nature of the catalog. Calhoun (2006) suggests that the library community should abandon many of its expensive knowledge organization practices - such as the Library of Congress Subject Headings - in favor of integration of search engines into library catalogs. As logical as this seems on the face of it (and as much as we might often have wished LCSH would go away!), purveyors of such notions have either forgotten or rejected the notion of the library as a social instrument, and therefore the order of things in libraries as an extension of that social role. We must also view knowledge organization then as a cultural enterprise, a social act that has consequences. The ontologies we use to devise categorical schemes imply certain realities. If we say there is no music other than Western Art, why, then there must be no point in paying any attention to music of any other sort, right? And if we say that UFOs are a kind of controversial knowledge, we join the community of non-believers who insist that UFOs do not exist. Surely if we thought they were viable phenomena we would create a concrete class for them (see DDC 001.942). Voila, now we know, UFOs do not exist - the DDC says so. And if a gay adolescent searches for literature to help understand and finds that it all falls under "perversion" then we have oppressed yet another youth (see Campbell 2001). Our actions have social consequences.
  11. Smiraglia, R.P.: Further reflections on the nature of a work : introduction (2002) 0.00
    0.0014647568 = product of:
      0.010253297 = sum of:
        0.010253297 = product of:
          0.051266484 = sum of:
            0.051266484 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.051266484 = score(doc=5623,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03622214 = queryNorm
                0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 5623, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5623)
          0.2 = coord(1/5)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    
    Abstract
    The purpose of this volume is to extend our understanding of the work entity and its role in information retrieval. Basic definitions are reviewed to provide a summary of current thought about works, their role in the catalog, and the potential for better accommodating them in future information retrieval environments. A discussion of entities for information retrieval and works as entities follows. Research in knowledge organization is summarized, indicating ways in which ontology, epistemology, and semiotics have lately been used as looking glasses through which to view the social informational roles of works.
    Content
    Beitrag eines Themenheftes "Works as entities for information retrieval"
  12. Smiraglia, R.P.: Works as signs, symbols,and canons : The epistemology of the work (2001) 0.00
    0.0014036982 = product of:
      0.009825887 = sum of:
        0.009825887 = product of:
          0.049129434 = sum of:
            0.049129434 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.049129434 = score(doc=1119,freq=10.0), product of:
                0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03622214 = queryNorm
                0.44838852 = fieldWeight in 1119, product of:
                  3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                    10.0 = termFreq=10.0
                  3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1119)
          0.2 = coord(1/5)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    
    Abstract
    Works are key entities in the universe of recorded knowledge. Works are those deliberate creations (known variously as opera, oeuvres, Werke, etc.) that constitute individual sets of created conceptions that stand as the formal records of knowledge. In the information retrieval domain, the work as opposed to the document, has only recently received focused attention. In this paper, the definition of the work as an entity for information retrieval is examined. A taxonomic definition (that is, a definition built around a taxonomy) is presented. An epistemological perspective aids in understanding the components of the taxonomic definition. Works, thus defined as entities for information retrieval, are seen to constitute sets of varying instantiations of abstract creations. These variant instantiations must be explicitly identified in future systems for documentary information retrieval. An expanded perception of works, such as that presented in this paper, helps us understand the variety of ways in which mechanisms for their control and retrieval might better be shaped in future.
  13. Friedman, A.; Smiraglia, R.P.: Nodes and arcs : concept map, semiotics, and knowledge organization (2013) 0.00
    0.0014021716 = product of:
      0.0098152 = sum of:
        0.0098152 = product of:
          0.0196304 = sum of:
            0.0196304 = weight(_text_:22 in 770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0196304 = score(doc=770,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.12684377 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03622214 = queryNorm
                0.15476047 = fieldWeight in 770, 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=770)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    
    Content
    Vgl. auch den Beitrag: Treude, L.: Das Problem der Konzeptdefinition in der Wissensorganisation: über einen missglückten Versuch der Klärung. In: LIBREAS: Library ideas. no.22, 2013, S.xx-xx.
  14. Smiraglia, R.P.: Bibliographic families and superworks (2007) 0.00
    0.0012555057 = product of:
      0.00878854 = sum of:
        0.00878854 = product of:
          0.0439427 = sum of:
            0.0439427 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1674) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0439427 = score(doc=1674,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03622214 = queryNorm
                0.40105087 = fieldWeight in 1674, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1674)
          0.2 = coord(1/5)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    
    Source
    Understanding FRBR: what it is and how it will affect our retrieval tools. Ed. by Arlene Taylor
  15. Smiraglia, R.P.: Derivative bibliographic relationships : linkages in the bibliographic universe (1994) 0.00
    0.0010462549 = product of:
      0.007323784 = sum of:
        0.007323784 = product of:
          0.03661892 = sum of:
            0.03661892 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3043) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03661892 = score(doc=3043,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03622214 = queryNorm
                0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 3043, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3043)
          0.2 = coord(1/5)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    
    Abstract
    A major problem for bibliographic retrieval is an absence of explicit linkages to guide users among manifestations of a work. The purpose of this research was to enhance the power of bibliographic retrieval systems by providing contextual information about the derivative bibliographic relationship. Descriptive survey method was employed. A sample of 411 works from the Georgetown University on-line catalog was drawn. 49.9% of works were derivative. Age of a progenitor work is the characteristic most strongly associated with derivation; language and country of origin are indifferent predictors. Popularity of works might contribute to the phenomenon of derivation. The mean size of bibliographic families of derivative works was 8.44 members. The majority of bibliographic families had successive derivations, large groups of bibliographic families had translations and simultaneous editions; few had extractions, amplifications, or performances; none had adaptations. Successive derivations are the most commonly found members of bibliographic families, and are associated with most other types of derivation within bibliographic families. The bibliographic data required for explicit control of works might easily be compiled from existing records. The development of bibliographic retrieval systems in the network environment could play a dramatic role in improving retrieval of works
  16. Scharnhorst, A.; Salah, A.A.; Gao, C.; Suchecki, K.; Smiraglia, R.P.: ¬The evolution of knowledge, and its representation in classification systems (2011) 0.00
    9.822896E-4 = product of:
      0.0068760267 = sum of:
        0.0068760267 = product of:
          0.034380134 = sum of:
            0.034380134 = weight(_text_:system in 4830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.034380134 = score(doc=4830,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03622214 = queryNorm
                0.30135927 = fieldWeight in 4830, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4830)
          0.2 = coord(1/5)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    
    Abstract
    Classification systems are often described as stable reference systems. Sometimes they are accused of being inflexible concerning the coverage of new ideas and scientific fields. Classification as an activity is the basis of all theory-generating research, and also plays a powerful role in social ordering. It is obvious that the ways in which we seek information and in which information is provided has changed dramatically since the emergence of digital information processing and even more with the internet, and web-based technologies. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate the notion of a stable knowledge organization classification as a temporary stationary manifestation of an open and evolving system of classification. We compare the structure of the main classes in the Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) according to their usage of special auxiliaries to demonstrate the dynamic evolution of the UDC over time, as a stable reference system representing published organized knowledge. We view the ecology of the UDC, and discover that most changes are to the ecology itself as numbers are re-interpreted. This subtle type of change is a key to monitoring the evolution of knowledge as it is represented in the UDC's stable reference system.
  17. Smiraglia, R.P.; Heuvel, C. van den; Dousa, T.M.: Interactions between elementary structures in universes of knowledge (2011) 0.00
    9.624433E-4 = product of:
      0.0067371028 = sum of:
        0.0067371028 = product of:
          0.033685513 = sum of:
            0.033685513 = weight(_text_:system in 4812) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.033685513 = score(doc=4812,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03622214 = queryNorm
                0.29527056 = fieldWeight in 4812, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4812)
          0.2 = coord(1/5)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    
    Abstract
    Contrasts in 20th century classification theory relate to a transition from a universe of "knowledge" system towards one of "concepts' Initiatives to develop a Simple Knowledge Organization Systems (SKOS) standard based on classification schemes and taxonomies within the framework of the Semantic Web (SW) are attempts to bridge the gap. Current knowledge organization systems (KOS) seem to reinforce "syntactics" at the expense of semantics. We claim that all structure is syntactic but knowledge structures need to have a semantic component as well. Therefore we consider classifications as artificial languages. The Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) constitutes a natural language-independent notation system that allows for mediating between concepts and knowledge systems. We discuss an elementary theory of knowledge organization based on the structure of knowledge rather than on the content of documents. Semantics becomes not a matter of synonymous concepts, but rather of coordinating knowledge structures. The interactions between these systems represent interactions between different universes of knowledge or concepts.
  18. Smiraglia, R.P.: Content metadata : an analysis of Etruscan artifacts in a museum of archeology (2005) 0.00
    8.877766E-4 = product of:
      0.006214436 = sum of:
        0.006214436 = product of:
          0.03107218 = sum of:
            0.03107218 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 176) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.03107218 = score(doc=176,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.109568894 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03622214 = queryNorm
                0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 176, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=176)
          0.2 = coord(1/5)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    
    Abstract
    Metadata schemes target resources as information-packages, without attention to the distinction between content and carrier. Most schema are derived without empirical understanding of the concepts that need to be represented, the ways in which terms representing the central concepts might best be derived, and how metadata descriptions will be used for retrieval. Research is required to resolve this dilemma, and much research will be required if the plethora of schemes that already exist are to be made efficacious for resource description and retrieval. Here I report the results of a preliminary study, which was designed to see whether the bibliographic concept of "the work" could be of any relevance among artifacts held by a museum. I extend the "works metaphor" from the bibliographic to the artifactual domain, by altering the terms of the definition slightly, thus: 1) instantiation is understood as content genealogy. Case studies of Etruscan artifacts from the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology are used to demonstrate the inherence of the work in non-documentary artifacts.
  19. Smiraglia, R.P.: Noesis : perception and every day classification (2008) 0.00
    8.0203614E-4 = product of:
      0.0056142528 = sum of:
        0.0056142528 = product of:
          0.028071264 = sum of:
            0.028071264 = weight(_text_:system in 2509) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.028071264 = score(doc=2509,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03622214 = queryNorm
                0.24605882 = fieldWeight in 2509, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2509)
          0.2 = coord(1/5)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    
    Content
    Perception is a crucial element in the viability of any knowledge organization system because it acts as a filter that provides contextual information about phenomena, including potential categorical membership. Perception is moderated culturally, but "social" systems exercise little or no cultural conformity. "Every day classification" is rife throughout human experience; but classification arises as a system of formal constraints that embody cultural assumptions about the categories that are the products of human cognition. Noesis is a perceptual component of Husserl's phenomenological approach to human experience. How we perceive a thing is filtered by our experiential feelings about it. The purpose of this research is to increase understanding of the role of cognition in every day classification by developing a fuller profile of perception. Photographs of mailboxes (a mundane, every-day example) from different locales are compared to demonstrate the noetic process. Tag clouds are analyzed to demonstrate the kinds of perceptual differences that suggest different user perceptions among those contributing tags.
  20. Smiraglia, R.P.: Be careful what you wish for : lacunae in the FRBR family of models (2012) 0.00
    7.9397525E-4 = product of:
      0.0055578267 = sum of:
        0.0055578267 = product of:
          0.027789133 = sum of:
            0.027789133 = weight(_text_:system in 1907) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.027789133 = score(doc=1907,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.11408355 = queryWeight, product of:
                  3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.03622214 = queryNorm
                0.2435858 = fieldWeight in 1907, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  3.1495528 = idf(docFreq=5152, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1907)
          0.2 = coord(1/5)
      0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
    
    Abstract
    The library catalog as a catalog of works was an infectious idea, which together with research led to reconceptualization in the form of the FRBR conceptual model. Two categories of lacunae emerge-the expression entity, and gaps in the model such as aggregates and dynamic documents. Evidence needed to extend the FRBR model is available in contemporary research on instantiation. The challenge for the bibliographic community is to begin to think of FRBR as a form of knowledge organization system, adding a final dimension to classification. The papers in the present volume offer a compendium of the promise of the FRBR model.