Search (27 results, page 1 of 2)

0.012372 = product of:
  0.057736002 = sum of:
    0.008366814 = weight(_text_:information in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008366814 = score(doc=3483,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 3483, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3483)
    0.017566316 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017566316 = score(doc=3483,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 3483, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3483)
    0.031802874 = product of:
      0.04770431 = sum of:
        0.031057559 = weight(_text_:2010 in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031057559 = score(doc=3483,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.117538005 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024573348 = queryNorm
            0.2642342 = fieldWeight in 3483, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3483)
        0.016646748 = weight(_text_:22 in 3483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016646748 = score(doc=3483,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08605168 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024573348 = queryNorm
            0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 3483, 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=3483)
      0.6666667 = coord(2/3)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

Classification is an activity that transcends time and space and that bridges the divisions between different languages and cultures, including the divisions between academic disciplines. Classificatory activity, however, serves different purposes in different situations. Classifications for infonnation retrieval can be called "professional" classifications and classifications in other fields can be called "naïve" classifications because they are developed by people who have no particular interest in classificatory issues. The general purpose of naïve classification systems is to discover new knowledge. In contrast, the general purpose of information retrieval classifications is to classify pre-existing knowledge. Different classificatory purposes may thus inform systems that are intended to span the cultural specifics of the globalized information society. This paper builds an previous research into the purposes and characteristics of naïve classifications. It describes some of the relationships between the purpose and context of a naive classification, the units of analysis used in it, and the theory that the context and the units of analysis imply.

Footnote

Vgl.: Jacob, E.K.: Proposal for a classification of classifications built on Beghtol's distinction between "Naïve Classification" and "Professional Classification". In: Knowledge organization. 37(2010) no.2, S.111-120.

Pages

S.19-22

Source

Knowledge organization and the global information society: Proceedings of the 8th International ISKO Conference 13-16 July 2004, London, UK. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine

0.007595515 = product of:
  0.035445735 = sum of:
    0.006693451 = weight(_text_:information in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006693451 = score(doc=5830,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 5830, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5830)
    0.01987402 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01987402 = score(doc=5830,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.26736724 = fieldWeight in 5830, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5830)
    0.0088782655 = product of:
      0.026634796 = sum of:
        0.026634796 = weight(_text_:22 in 5830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.026634796 = score(doc=5830,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.08605168 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024573348 = queryNorm
            0.30952093 = fieldWeight in 5830, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=5830)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Date

5. 8.2006 13:22:08

0.0070688287 = product of:
  0.032987867 = sum of:
    0.016357405 = weight(_text_:web in 3965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.016357405 = score(doc=3965,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.08019538 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.2039694 = fieldWeight in 3965, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3965)
    0.006693451 = weight(_text_:information in 3965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006693451 = score(doc=3965,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 3965, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=3965)
    0.00993701 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3965) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00993701 = score(doc=3965,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.13368362 = fieldWeight in 3965, 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=3965)
  0.21428572 = coord(3/14)

Abstract

Iter ("journey" or "path" in Latin) is a non-profit project for providing electronic access to materials pertaining to the Middle Ages and Renaissance (400-1700). Iter's background is described, and its centrepiece, the Iter Bibliography, is explicated. Emphasis is an the subject cataloguing process and an subject access to records for journal articles (using Library of Congress Subject Headings and the Dewey Decimal Classification). Basic subject analysis of the materials is provided by graduate students specializing in the Middle Ages and Renaissance periods, and, subsequently, subject access points systems are provided by information professionals. This close cooperation between subject and information experts would not be efficient without electronic capabilities.

Content

"1. Iter: Gateway to the Middle Ages and Renaissance Iter is a non-profit research project dedicated to providing electronic access to all kinds and formats of materials pertaining to the Middle Ages and Renaissance (400-1700). Iter began in 1995 as a joint initiative of the Renaissance Society of America (RSA) in New York City and the Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies (CRRS), Univ. of Toronto. By 1997, three more partners had joined: Faculty of Information Studies (FIS), Univ. of Toronto; Arizona Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies (ACMRS), Arizona State Univ. at Tempe; and John P. Robarts Library, Univ. of Toronto. Iter was funded initially by the five partners and major foundations and, since 1998, has offered low-cost subscriptions to institutions and individuals. When Iter becomes financially self-sufficient, any profits will be used to enhance and expand the project. Iter databases are housed and maintained at the John P. Robarts Library. The interface is a customized version of DRA WebZ. A new interface using DRA Web can be searched now and will replace the DRA WebZ interface shortly. Iter was originally conceived as a comprehensive bibliography of secondary materials that would be an alternative to the existing commercial research tools for its period. These were expensive, generally appeared several years late, had limited subject indexing, were inconsistent in coverage, of uneven quality, and often depended an fragile networks of volunteers for identification of materials. The production of a reasonably priced, web-based, timely research tool was Iter's first priority. In addition, the partners wanted to involve graduate students in the project in order to contribute to the scholarly training and financial support of future scholars of the Middle Ages and Renaissance and to utilize as much automation as possible."

Source

Subject retrieval in a networked environment: Proceedings of the IFLA Satellite Meeting held in Dublin, OH, 14-16 August 2001 and sponsored by the IFLA Classification and Indexing Section, the IFLA Information Technology Section and OCLC. Ed.: I.C. McIlwaine

0.005486098 = product of:
  0.038402684 = sum of:
    0.008282723 = weight(_text_:information in 5844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008282723 = score(doc=5844,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 5844, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5844)
    0.03011996 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5844) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03011996 = score(doc=5844,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.40520695 = fieldWeight in 5844, 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=5844)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

The arts, humanities, and social sciences commonly borrow concepts and methods from the sciences, but interdisciplinary borrowing seldom occurs in the opposite direction. Research on narrative discourse is relevant to problems of documentary storage and retrieval, for the arts and humanities in particular, but also for other broad areas of knowledge. This paper views the potential application of narrative discourse analysis to information storage and retrieval problems from 2 perspectives: 1) analysis and comparison of narrative documents in all disciplines may be simplified if fundamental categories that occur in narrative documents can be isolated; and 2) the possibility of subdividing the world of knowledge initially into narrative and non-narrative documents is explored with particular attention to Werlich's work on text types

0.005186626 = product of:
  0.03630638 = sum of:
    0.01171354 = weight(_text_:information in 1483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01171354 = score(doc=1483,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 1483, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1483)
    0.024592843 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1483) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024592843 = score(doc=1483,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.33085006 = fieldWeight in 1483, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1483)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Facet analysis has been one of the foremost contenders as a design principle for information retrieval classifications, both manual and electronic in the last fifty years. Evidence is presented that the facet concept has a claim to be considered as a method of subdivision that is cognitively available to human beings, regardless of language, culture, or academic discipline. The possibility that faceting is a universal method of subdivision enhances the claim that facet analysis as an unusually useful design principle for information retrieval classifications in any field. This possibility needs further investigation in an age when information access across boundaries is both necessary and possible.

Source

Knowledge organization, information systems and other essays: Professor A. Neelameghan Festschrift. Ed. by K.S. Raghavan and K.N. Prasad

0.0049713654 = product of:
  0.034799557 = sum of:
    0.006693451 = weight(_text_:information in 4018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.006693451 = score(doc=4018,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.1551638 = fieldWeight in 4018, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4018)
    0.028106106 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4018) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.028106106 = score(doc=4018,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.37811437 = fieldWeight in 4018, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4018)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Proposes a new experimental methodology for evaluating the results of library research from the user's viewpoint. Illustrates the theory by comparing the efficacy of information retrieved from 2 document catalogues, identical except that one is alphabetical and the other numerical/verbal. The methodology utilises the concept of 3 dependent variables: 'promising references retrieved' by the researcher; 'documents read'; and 'documents cited'. Claims that the retrieval effectiveness of the techniques outlined compares favourably with that of W.S. Cooper's methodology

Footnote

Retrieval effectiveness

0.0048852726 = product of:
  0.034196906 = sum of:
    0.009354382 = weight(_text_:information in 3021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009354382 = score(doc=3021,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.21684799 = fieldWeight in 3021, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3021)
    0.024842525 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3021) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024842525 = score(doc=3021,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 3021, 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=3021)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Classification is a transdisciplinary activity that occurs during all human pursuits. Classificatory activity, however, serves different purposes in different situations. In information retrieval, the primary purpose of classification is to find knowledge that already exists, but one of the purposes of classification in other fields is to discover new knowledge. In this paper, classifications for information retrieval are called "professional" classifications because they are devised by people who have a professional interest in classification, and classifications for knowledge discovery are called "naive" classifications because they are devised by people who have no particular interest in studying classification as an end in itself. This paper compares the overall purposes and methods of these two kinds of classifications and provides a general model of the relationships between the two kinds of classificatory activity in the context of information studies. This model addresses issues of the influence of scholarly activity and communication an the creation and revision of classifications for the purposes of information retrieval and for the purposes of knowledge discovery. Further comparisons elucidate the relationships between the universality of classificatory methods and the specific purposes served by naive and professional classification systems.

0.004110436 = product of:
  0.02877305 = sum of:
    0.00585677 = weight(_text_:information in 3566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.00585677 = score(doc=3566,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.13576832 = fieldWeight in 3566, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3566)
    0.02291628 = product of:
      0.06874884 = sum of:
        0.06874884 = weight(_text_:2010 in 3566) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.06874884 = score(doc=3566,freq=5.0), product of:
            0.117538005 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024573348 = queryNorm
            0.5849073 = fieldWeight in 3566, product of:
              2.236068 = tf(freq=5.0), with freq of:
                5.0 = termFreq=5.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3566)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

This article documents and analyzes Nancy J. Williamson's contributions to two of the major publications of the International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), International Classification/ Knowledge Organization and Advances in Classification Research. The results show her serious and long-standing commitment to the field of representing and organizing information and knowledge and her dedication to expanding worldwide interest and involvement in these fields. The Appendix provides access to each of Williamson's contributions to the two ISKO publications.

Source

Cataloging and classification quarterly. 48(2010) no.1, S.26-35

Year

2010

0.003492732 = product of:
  0.024449123 = sum of:
    0.017349645 = weight(_text_:web in 638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017349645 = score(doc=638,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08019538 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 638, 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=638)
    0.007099477 = weight(_text_:information in 638) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007099477 = score(doc=638,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 638, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=638)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

The Iter Project ("iter" means "path" or "journey" in Latin) is an internationally supported non-profit research project created with the objective of providing electronic access to all kinds and formats of materials that relate to the Middle Ages and Renaissance (400-1700) and that were published between 1700 and the present. Knowledge representation and organization decisions for the Project were influenced by its potential international clientele of scholarly users, and these decisions illustrate the importance and efficacy of collaboration between specialized users and information professionals. The paper outlines the scholarly principles and information goals of the Project and describes in detail the methodology developed to provide reliable and consistent knowledge representation and organization for one component of the Project, the Iter Bibliography. Examples of fully catalogued records for the Iter Bibliography are included.

0.0031877875 = product of:
  0.022314511 = sum of:
    0.007099477 = weight(_text_:information in 3761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007099477 = score(doc=3761,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 3761, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3761)
    0.015215035 = product of:
      0.045645103 = sum of:
        0.045645103 = weight(_text_:2010 in 3761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.045645103 = score(doc=3761,freq=3.0), product of:
            0.117538005 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024573348 = queryNorm
            0.38834336 = fieldWeight in 3761, product of:
              1.7320508 = tf(freq=3.0), with freq of:
                3.0 = termFreq=3.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=3761)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

In the library and information sciences, classification theories are used primarily for knowledge organization, either in a manual or in a machine environment. In this context, classification theories have usually been developed initially as a support for specific knowledge organization classification systems, although the theories and the systems have influenced and re-influenced each other in particular ways throughout their lives. This entry discusses theories for knowledge organization classifications using examples from a number of classification systems, but no one system is discussed at length. Instead, the entry is organized into sections that deal first with classificatory issues in general and then with theories of content, theories of structure, and theories of notation for knowledge organization classifications.

Source

Encyclopedia of library and information sciences. 3rd ed. Ed.: M.J. Bates

Year

2010

0.0028465146 = product of:
  0.019925602 = sum of:
    0.0050200885 = weight(_text_:information in 2217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050200885 = score(doc=2217,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2217, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2217)
    0.014905514 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2217) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014905514 = score(doc=2217,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2217, 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=2217)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Undiscovered public knowledge is a relatively unstudied phenomenon, and the few extended examples that have been published are intradisciplinary. This paper presents the concept of 'facet' as an example of interdisciplinary undiscovered public knowledge. 'Facets' were central to the bibliographic classification theory of S.R. Ranganathan in India and to the behavioural research of L. Guttman in Israel. The term had the same meaning in both fields, and the concept was developed and exploited at about the same time in both, but two separate, unconnected literatures grew up around the term and its associated concepts. This paper examines the origins and parallel uses of the concept and the term in both fields as a case study of interdisciplinary knowledge that could have been, but was apparantly not, doscovered any time between the aerly 1950s and the present using simple, readily available information retrieval techniques

0.0028465146 = product of:
  0.019925602 = sum of:
    0.0050200885 = weight(_text_:information in 2028) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050200885 = score(doc=2028,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 2028, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2028)
    0.014905514 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2028) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014905514 = score(doc=2028,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.20052543 = fieldWeight in 2028, 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=2028)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

Abstract

Bibliographic classification systems purport to organize the world of knowledge for information storage and retrieval purposes in libraries and bibliographies, both manual and online. The major systems that have predominated during the 20th century were originally predicated on the academic disciplines. This structural principle is no longer adequate because multidisciplinray knowledge production has overtaken more traditional disciplinary perspectives and produced communities of cooperation whose documents cannot be accomodated in a disciplinary structure. This paper addresses the problems the major classifications face, reports some attempts to revise these systems to accomodate multidisciplinary works more appropriately, and describes some theoretical research perspectives that attempt to reorient classification research toward the pluralistic needs of multidisciplinary knowledge creation and the perspectives of different discourse communities. Traditionally, the primary desiderata of classification systems were mutual exclusivity and joint exhaustivity. The need to respond to multidisciplinary research may mean that hospitality will replace mutual exclusivity and joint exhaustivity as the most needed and useful characteristics of classification systems in both theory and practice

0.0023720958 = product of:
  0.01660467 = sum of:
    0.004183407 = weight(_text_:information in 1856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.004183407 = score(doc=1856,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1856, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1856)
    0.012421262 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1856) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012421262 = score(doc=1856,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 1856, 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=1856)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

0.0018337494 = product of:
  0.012836245 = sum of:
    0.0041413615 = weight(_text_:information in 3536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0041413615 = score(doc=3536,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.0960027 = fieldWeight in 3536, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3536)
    0.008694883 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3536) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.008694883 = score(doc=3536,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.07433229 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.11697317 = fieldWeight in 3536, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
          0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3536)
  0.14285715 = coord(2/14)

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.

0.0012392604 = product of:
  0.017349645 = sum of:
    0.017349645 = weight(_text_:web in 44) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017349645 = score(doc=44,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.08019538 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.21634221 = fieldWeight in 44, 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=44)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

In this century, knowledge creation, production, dissemination and use have changed profoundly. Intellectual and physical barriers have been substantially reduced by the rise of multidisciplinarity and by the influence of computerization, particularly by the spread of the World Wide Web (WWW). Bibliographic classification systems need to respond to this situation. Three possible strategic responses are described: 1) adopting an existing system; 2) adapting an existing system; and 3) finding new structural principles for classification systems. Examples of these three responses are given. An extended example of the third option uses the knowledge outline in the Spectrum of Britannica Online to suggest a theory of "viewpoint warrant" that could be used to incorporate differing perspectives into general classification systems

9.354383E-4 = product of:
  0.013096136 = sum of:
    0.013096136 = weight(_text_:information in 1297) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.013096136 = score(doc=1297,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.3035872 = fieldWeight in 1297, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1297)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

Interdisciplinarity is a means by which the unit of information and the separateness of disciplines can work together harmoniously. Characterizes disciplinarity and the role of information science in serving other disciplines as well as its own discipline. Interdisciplinarity relationships occur among all knowledge seeking disciplines, (including LIS), and those between LIS and every other filed of knowledge production, utilization and practical action. Considers how LIS can promote interdisciplinarity relationships and research

Imprint

Alberta : Alberta University, School of Library and Information Studies

Source

Connectedness: information, systems, people, organizations. Proceedings of CAIS/ACSI 95, the proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Canadian Association for Information Science. Ed. by Hope A. Olson and Denis B. Ward

8.3668146E-4 = product of:
  0.01171354 = sum of:
    0.01171354 = weight(_text_:information in 6084) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01171354 = score(doc=6084,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 6084, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=6084)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Canadian journal of information and library science. 20(1996) no.2, S.30-41

8.3668146E-4 = product of:
  0.01171354 = sum of:
    0.01171354 = weight(_text_:information in 666) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01171354 = score(doc=666,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 666, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=666)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Abstract

The interdisciplinary field of information studies requires an eclectic and imaginative curriculum. Future information professionals need intellectual tools that will enable them to adapt to changed social and technological environments. In this situation, the study of classification, including both principles application for current bibliographic systems and principles of construction that could be used to develop new systems for bibliographic and non bibliographic materials, is one way to equip students with the balanced flexibility to adapt to changing needs. Knowledge of the organization of knowledge is basic to any kind of information work

7.3946576E-4 = product of:
  0.01035252 = sum of:
    0.01035252 = product of:
      0.031057559 = sum of:
        0.031057559 = weight(_text_:2010 in 3487) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031057559 = score(doc=3487,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.117538005 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.024573348 = queryNorm
            0.2642342 = fieldWeight in 3487, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.7831497 = idf(docFreq=1005, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3487)
      0.33333334 = coord(1/3)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Footnote

Vgl.: Kwasnik, B.H.: Semantic warrant: a pivotal concept for our field. In: Knowledge organization. 37(2010) no.2, S.106-110.

7.171555E-4 = product of:
  0.010040177 = sum of:
    0.010040177 = weight(_text_:information in 3026) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.010040177 = score(doc=3026,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.04313797 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.024573348 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 3026, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=3026)
  0.071428575 = coord(1/14)

Source

Journal of information ethics. 17(2008) no.1, S.12-19