Search (17 results, page 1 of 1)

0.007228325 = product of:
  0.054212436 = sum of:
    0.043495167 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043495167 = score(doc=1096,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13272417 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.327711 = fieldWeight in 1096, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1096)
    0.010717267 = product of:
      0.021434534 = sum of:
        0.021434534 = weight(_text_:22 in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021434534 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.110801086 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1096, 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=1096)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)

Abstract

A table of contents (ToC) is a kind of document representation as well as a paratext and a kind of finding device to the document it represents. TOCs are very common in books and some other kinds of documents, but not in all kinds. This article discusses the definition and functions of ToC, normative guidelines for their design, and the history and forms of ToC in different kinds of documents and media. A main part of the article is about the role of ToC in information searching, in current awareness services and as items added to bibliographical records. The introduction and the conclusion focus on the core theoretical issues concerning ToCs. Should they be document-oriented or request-oriented, neutral, or policy-oriented, objective, or subjective? It is concluded that because of the special functions of ToCs, the arguments for the request-oriented (policy-oriented, subjective) view are weaker than they are in relation to indexing and knowledge organization in general. Apart from level of granularity, the evaluation of a ToC is difficult to separate from the evaluation of the structuring and naming of the elements of the structure of the document it represents.

Date

18.11.2023 13:47:22

0.005475605 = product of:
  0.041067034 = sum of:
    0.026062861 = weight(_text_:web in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.026062861 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = 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)
    0.015004174 = product of:
      0.030008348 = sum of:
        0.030008348 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030008348 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.110801086 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)

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

0.0049248585 = product of:
  0.07387287 = sum of:
    0.07387287 = weight(_text_:site in 2973) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.07387287 = score(doc=2973,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.1738463 = queryWeight, product of:
          5.494352 = idf(docFreq=493, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.4249321 = fieldWeight in 2973, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          5.494352 = idf(docFreq=493, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=2973)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

In spring 2002 I started teaching Knowledge Organization (KO) at the new master education at The Royal School of Library and Information Science in Copenhagen (MS RSLIS). I began collecting information about KO as support for my own teaching and research. In the beginning I made the information available to the student through a password protected system "SiteScape". This site was a great success, but I encountered problems in transferring the system for new classes the following years. Therefore I have now decided to make it public on the www and to protect only information that should not be made public. References freely available in electronic form are given an URL (if known).

0.002899678 = product of:
  0.043495167 = sum of:
    0.043495167 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.043495167 = score(doc=789,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13272417 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.327711 = fieldWeight in 789, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=789)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Any ontological theory commits us to accept and classify a number of phenomena in a more or less specific way-and vice versa: a classification tends to reveal the theoretical outlook of its creator. Objects and their descriptions and relations are not just "given," but determined by theories. Knowledge is fallible, and consensus is rare. By implication, knowledge organization has to consider different theories/views and their foundations. Bibliographical classifications depend on subject knowledge and on the same theories as corresponding scientific and scholarly classifications. Some classifications are based on logical distinctions, others on empirical examinations, and some on mappings of common ancestors or on establishing functional criteria. To evaluate a classification is to involve oneself in the research which has produced the given classification. Because research is always based more or less on specific epistemological ideals (e.g., empiricism, rationalism, historicism, or pragmatism), the evaluation of classification includes the evaluation of the epistemological foundations of the research on which given classifications have been based. The field of knowledge organization itself is based on different approaches and traditions such as user-based and cognitive views, facet-analytical views, numeric taxonomic approaches, bibliometrics, and domain-analytic approaches. These approaches and traditions are again connected to epistemological views, which have to be considered. Only the domain-analytic view is fully committed to exploring knowledge organization in the light of subject knowledge and substantial scholarly theories.

0.0024604585 = product of:
  0.036906876 = sum of:
    0.036906876 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 4404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036906876 = score(doc=4404,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13272417 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.278072 = fieldWeight in 4404, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4404)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

Purpose - The purpose of this article is to introduce the special issue of Journal of Documentation about library and information science (LIS) and the philosophy of science. Design/methodology/approach - The most important earlier collected works about metatheories and philosophies of science within LIS are listed. Findings - It is claimed that Sweden probably is the country in which philosophy of science has the highest priority in LIS education. The plan of the guest editor was that each epistemological position should be both introduced and interpreted in a LIS context together with a review of its influence within the field and an evaluation of the pros and cons of that position. This was only an ideal plan. It is argued that it is important that such knowledge and debate are available within the LIS-literature itself and that the answers to such questions as "What is positivism?" are not trivial ones. Originality/value - The introduction is written to assist readers overviewing the issue and share the thoughts of the editor in planning the issue.

0.0024604585 = product of:
  0.036906876 = sum of:
    0.036906876 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 2193) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036906876 = score(doc=2193,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13272417 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.278072 = fieldWeight in 2193, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2193)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

The notion "theory" is a neglected concept in the field of information science and knowledge organization (KO) as well as generally in philosophy and in many other fields, although there are exceptions from this general neglect (e.g., the so-called "theory theory" in cognitive psychology). This article introduces different conceptions of "theory" and argues that a theory is a statement or a conception, which is considered open to be questioned and which is connected with background assumptions. Theories form interconnected systems of grand, middle rank and micro theories and actions, practices and artifacts are theory-laden. The concept of knowledge organization system (KOS) is briefly introduced and discussed. A theory is a form of KOS and theories are the point of departure of any KOS. It is generally understood in KO that concepts are the units of KOSs, but the theory-dependence of concepts brings theories to the forefront in analyzing concepts and KOSs. The study of theories should therefore be given a high priority within KO concerning the construction and evaluation of KOSs.

0.0024604585 = product of:
  0.036906876 = sum of:
    0.036906876 = weight(_text_:evaluation in 591) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.036906876 = score(doc=591,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13272417 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.278072 = fieldWeight in 591, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.1947007 = idf(docFreq=1811, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=591)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

This article discusses the different meanings of 'keyword' and related terms such as 'keyphrase', 'descriptor', 'index term', 'subject heading', 'tag' and 'n-gram' and suggests definitions of each of these terms. It further illustrates a classification of keywords, based on how they are produced or who is the actor generating them and present comparison between author-assigned keywords, indexer-assigned keywords and reader-assigned keywords as well as the automatic generation of keywords. The article also considers the functions of keywords including the use of keywords for generating bibliographic indexes. The theoretical view informing the article is that the assignment of a keyword to a text, picture or other document involves an interpretation of the document and an evaluation of the document's potentials for users. This perspective is important for both manually assigned keywords and for automated generation and is opposed to a strong tendency to consider a set of keywords as ideally presenting one best representation of a document for all requests.

0.00212503 = product of:
  0.031875446 = sum of:
    0.031875446 = product of:
      0.06375089 = sum of:
        0.06375089 = weight(_text_:online in 3826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06375089 = score(doc=3826,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.096027054 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.6638847 = fieldWeight in 3826, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3826)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval
Verbale Doksprachen im Online-Retrieval

0.0021061972 = product of:
  0.031592958 = sum of:
    0.031592958 = weight(_text_:web in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031592958 = score(doc=444,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = queryNorm
        0.3059541 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

A citation index is a bibliographic database that provides citation links between documents. The first modern citation index was suggested by the researcher Eugene Garfield in 1955 and created by him in 1964, and it represents an important innovation to knowledge organization and information retrieval. This article describes citation indexes in general, considering the modern citation indexes, including Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Crossref, Dimensions and some special citation indexes and predecessors to the modern citation index like Shepard's Citations. We present comparative studies of the major ones and survey theoretical problems related to the role of citation indexes as subject access points (SAP), recognizing the implications to knowledge organization and information retrieval. Finally, studies on citation behavior are presented and the influence of citation indexes on knowledge organization, information retrieval and the scientific information ecosystem is recognized.

Object

Web of Science

0.0014893063 = product of:
  0.022339594 = sum of:
    0.022339594 = weight(_text_:web in 639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022339594 = score(doc=639,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.10326045 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.031640913 = 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)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

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.

0.0010002783 = product of:
  0.015004174 = sum of:
    0.015004174 = product of:
      0.030008348 = sum of:
        0.030008348 = weight(_text_:22 in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.030008348 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.110801086 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5237, 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=5237)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Date

21. 7.2006 14:11:22

8.573814E-4 = product of:
  0.01286072 = sum of:
    0.01286072 = product of:
      0.02572144 = sum of:
        0.02572144 = weight(_text_:22 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02572144 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.110801086 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = 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)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Date

17. 3.2011 19:22:55

7.1448454E-4 = product of:
  0.010717267 = sum of:
    0.010717267 = product of:
      0.021434534 = sum of:
        0.021434534 = weight(_text_:22 in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021434534 = score(doc=629,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.110801086 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = 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)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Date

22. 2.2013 11:49:13

7.1448454E-4 = product of:
  0.010717267 = sum of:
    0.010717267 = product of:
      0.021434534 = sum of:
        0.021434534 = weight(_text_:22 in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021434534 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.110801086 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = 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)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

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

5.36651E-4 = product of:
  0.008049765 = sum of:
    0.008049765 = product of:
      0.01609953 = sum of:
        0.01609953 = weight(_text_:online in 6391) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01609953 = score(doc=6391,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.096027054 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 6391, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6391)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Abstract

This paper takes a second look at three prevailing main themes in knowledge organization: i) the academic disciplines as the main structural principle; ii) the fiction/non-fiction distinction; and iii) the appropriate unit of analysis in online retrieval systems. The history and origin of bibliographic classification [Dewey, Bliss, Mills, Beghtol] are discussed from the perspective of pragmatist philosophy and social studies of science [Kuhn, Merton, Reich]. Choices of structural principles in different schemes are found to rely on more or less implicit philosophical foundations, ranging from rationalism to pragmatism. It is further shown how the increasing application of faceted structures as basic structural principles in universal classification schemes [DDC, UDC] impose rationalistic principles and structures for knowledge organization which are not in alignment with the development of knowledge in the covered disciplines. Further evidence of rationalism in knowledge organization is the fiction/non-fiction distinction, excluding the important role of artistic resources for, in particular, humanistic research. Finally, for the analysis of appropriate bibliographic unit, it is argued that there is a need to shift towards a semiotic approach, founded on an understanding of intertextuality, rather than applying standard principles of hierarchical decomposition of documents. It is concluded that a change in classification research is needed, founded on a more historical and social understanding of knowledge

5.36651E-4 = product of:
  0.008049765 = sum of:
    0.008049765 = product of:
      0.01609953 = sum of:
        0.01609953 = weight(_text_:online in 1892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01609953 = score(doc=1892,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.096027054 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.16765618 = fieldWeight in 1892, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.0349014 = idf(docFreq=5778, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1892)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

3.5724227E-4 = product of:
  0.0053586336 = sum of:
    0.0053586336 = product of:
      0.010717267 = sum of:
        0.010717267 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.010717267 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.110801086 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.031640913 = queryNorm
            0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 2748, 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=2748)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)

Date

22. 3.2009 18:13:27