Beghtol, C.: Response to Hjoerland and Nicolaisen (2004)
0.01
0.006773503 = product of:
0.04741452 = sum of:
0.04741452 = weight(_text_:interpretation in 3536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.04741452 = score(doc=3536,freq=2.0), product of:
0.21405315 = queryWeight, product of:
5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
0.037368443 = queryNorm
0.22150815 = fieldWeight in 3536, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
5.7281795 = idf(docFreq=390, maxDocs=44218)
0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3536)
0.14285715 = coord(1/7)
- Abstract
- I am writing to correct some of the misconceptions that Hjoerland and Nicolaisen appear to have about my paper in the previous issue of Knowledge Organization. I would like to address aspects of two of these misapprehensions. The first is the faulty interpretation they have given to my use of the term "naïve classification," and the second is the kinds of classification systems that they appear to believe are discussed in my paper as examples of "naïve classifications." First, the term "naïve classification" is directly analogous to the widely-understood and widelyaccepted term "naïve indexing." It is not analogous to the terms to which Hjorland and Nicolaisen compare it (i.e., "naïve physics", "naïve biology"). The term as I have defined it is not pejorative. It does not imply that the scholars who have developed naïve classifications have not given profoundly serious thought to their own scholarly work. My paper distinguishes between classifications for new knowledge developed by scholars in the various disciplines for the purposes of advancing disciplinary knowledge ("naïve classifications") and classifications for previously existing knowledge developed by information professionals for the purposes of creating access points in information retrieval systems ("professional classifications"). This distinction rests primarily an the purpose of the kind of classification system in question and only secondarily an the knowledge base of the scholars who have created it. Hjoerland and Nicolaisen appear to have misunderstood this point, which is made clearly and adequately in the title, in the abstract and throughout the text of my paper.
