Search (16 results, page 1 of 1)

0.03346218 = product of:
  0.06692436 = sum of:
    0.05215197 = weight(_text_:open in 4830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.05215197 = score(doc=4830,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.24876907 = fieldWeight in 4830, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4830)
    0.014772392 = product of:
      0.029544784 = sum of:
        0.029544784 = weight(_text_:access in 4830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029544784 = score(doc=4830,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.18724121 = fieldWeight in 4830, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4830)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(2/4)

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.

Source

Classification and ontology: formal approaches and access to knowledge: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar, 19-20 September 2011, The Hague, The Netherlands. Eds.: A. Slavic u. E. Civallero

0.02709896 = product of:
  0.10839584 = sum of:
    0.10839584 = weight(_text_:open in 1575) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.10839584 = score(doc=1575,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.20964009 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046553567 = queryNorm
        0.5170568 = fieldWeight in 1575, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          4.5032015 = idf(docFreq=1330, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1575)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to enhance cultural heritage data curation. A core research question of this study is how to share cultural heritage data by using ontologies. A case study was conducted using open government data mapped with the CIDOC-CRM (Conceptual Reference Model). Twelve library-related files in unstructured data format were collected from an open government website, Seoul Metropolitan Government of Korea (http://data.seoul.go.kr). By using the ontologies of the CIDOC CRM 5.1.2, we conducted a mapping process as a way of enhancing cultural heritage information to share information as a data component. We graphed each file then mapped each file in tables. Implications of this study are both the enhanced discoverability of unstructured data and the reusability of mapped information. Issues emerging from this study involve verification of detail for complete compatibility without further input from domain experts.

0.008955287 = product of:
  0.035821147 = sum of:
    0.035821147 = product of:
      0.071642295 = sum of:
        0.071642295 = weight(_text_:access in 343) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.071642295 = score(doc=343,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.45403582 = fieldWeight in 343, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=343)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Bibliographic control does not differ in substance from one type of material to another. Therefore it is not possible to separate the bibliographic control of music materials entirely from the larger domain of bibliographic control activity. The literature of music librarianship is examined for relevant theoretical explanations. Specific problems of description and access are used to show that, in general, the requirements for bibliographic control of music fit neatly into the theoretical structure for all bibliographic control. The primary purpose of descriptive cataloging of musical objects is to identify and differentiate among objects in a library collection. Where the concept of responsibility is relevant, access is provided through the names of composers or performers. Systematic access is provided through co-equal facets: medium, manifestation, and form.

0.008863435 = product of:
  0.03545374 = sum of:
    0.03545374 = product of:
      0.07090748 = sum of:
        0.07090748 = weight(_text_:access in 490) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.07090748 = score(doc=490,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.4493789 = fieldWeight in 490, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=490)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

This paper takes for granted that archival materials will be entered into a catalog in which Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) will be used to provide access. The purposes of subject access are discussed. The matter of selecting the appropriate extent of subject cataloging for archival entities is raised. Archival entities will generally require more detailed subject cataloging than published materials. A scheme for subject analysis of archival materials is presented. LCSH is described briefly, and several archival entities are analyzed and provided with LCSH access points to illustrate the methodology employed. The chief advantages of using LCSH for archival materials are its availability, and its ability to cause archival materials to collocate topically with published materials in integrated online systems.

0.0047305245 = product of:
  0.018922098 = sum of:
    0.018922098 = product of:
      0.037844196 = sum of:
        0.037844196 = weight(_text_:22 in 1415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037844196 = score(doc=1415,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.0047305245 = product of:
  0.018922098 = sum of:
    0.018922098 = product of:
      0.037844196 = sum of:
        0.037844196 = weight(_text_:22 in 1420) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037844196 = score(doc=1420,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.0044317176 = product of:
  0.01772687 = sum of:
    0.01772687 = product of:
      0.03545374 = sum of:
        0.03545374 = weight(_text_:access in 1761) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03545374 = score(doc=1761,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.22468945 = fieldWeight in 1761, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1761)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

For a long time music librarians have grappled with the problem of cataloguing music scores along with physical recordings, including videorecordings of musical performances, in such a way as to collocate als physical forms in an intelligible order. The critical problems are, how to identify the properties of musical bibliographic entities and then how to control each property in the bibliographic universe and in each of the subsets of that universe, such as the library OPAC. Examines the concept of the 'musical work' as it has been decribed by bibliographers, cataloguers and scholars of bibliographic control. Concludes that there is ample evidence that equality exists among the representations of a musical work regardless of their physical formats. An understanding of the concept of the musical work should obviate the need to reconsider forms of access under current cataloguing practice and lead the way to the next generation of bibliographic control for musical works

0.0044317176 = product of:
  0.01772687 = sum of:
    0.01772687 = product of:
      0.03545374 = sum of:
        0.03545374 = weight(_text_:access in 4812) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03545374 = score(doc=4812,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.22468945 = fieldWeight in 4812, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4812)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Source

Classification and ontology: formal approaches and access to knowledge: proceedings of the International UDC Seminar, 19-20 September 2011, The Hague, The Netherlands. Eds.: A. Slavic u. E. Civallero

0.0039421036 = product of:
  0.015768414 = sum of:
    0.015768414 = product of:
      0.03153683 = sum of:
        0.03153683 = weight(_text_:22 in 107) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03153683 = score(doc=107,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

10. 9.2000 17:38:22

0.0039421036 = product of:
  0.015768414 = sum of:
    0.015768414 = product of:
      0.03153683 = sum of:
        0.03153683 = weight(_text_:22 in 630) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03153683 = score(doc=630,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 2.2013 11:09:49

0.0039421036 = product of:
  0.015768414 = sum of:
    0.015768414 = product of:
      0.03153683 = sum of:
        0.03153683 = weight(_text_:22 in 636) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03153683 = score(doc=636,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

22. 2.2013 11:43:34

0.0039421036 = product of:
  0.015768414 = sum of:
    0.015768414 = product of:
      0.03153683 = sum of:
        0.03153683 = weight(_text_:22 in 1412) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03153683 = score(doc=1412,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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

0.003693098 = product of:
  0.014772392 = sum of:
    0.014772392 = product of:
      0.029544784 = sum of:
        0.029544784 = weight(_text_:access in 2364) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029544784 = score(doc=2364,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.18724121 = fieldWeight in 2364, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2364)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

Bibliocentricity in the library catalog arose from the practice of resource description, which emerged from the simple listing of books as objects with little reference to their intellectual content. Combined with shifting cultural conceptions of authorship, this led to a complex system in which the implicit concept of "goodness" affected the efficacy of description of varying resources. Issues of domain-specificity, cultural origins or contexts of usage have been disregarded in deference to book-like considerations. RDA (Resource Description and Access provides for analytical descriptions using the knowledge-based FRBR conceptual model of entities based on the artifactual intersection of intellectual works and cultural information carriers. The more empirically- based FRBRoo, an object-oriented revision of the conceptual model, reflects the atemporality of instantiation. FRBRoo seems promising as a potential additional facet for expressing structural components of knowledge represented by traditionally conceptual KOSs. In this study two cases are analyzed from the point of view of both RDA and FRBRoo. Analysis shows how little synergy has been gained through RDA's implementation of the FRBR model. The cases analyzed using RDA and FRBRoo serve as artifacts of cultural discourse, by which the measure of objective violence reflects the degree to which individual works still cannot be disambiguated.

0.003153683 = product of:
  0.012614732 = sum of:
    0.012614732 = product of:
      0.025229463 = sum of:
        0.025229463 = weight(_text_:22 in 770) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.025229463 = score(doc=770,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

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.

0.0029544784 = product of:
  0.0118179135 = sum of:
    0.0118179135 = product of:
      0.023635827 = sum of:
        0.023635827 = weight(_text_:access in 2304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023635827 = score(doc=2304,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.15778996 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = queryNorm
            0.14979297 = fieldWeight in 2304, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.389428 = idf(docFreq=4053, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2304)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Abstract

At the last Digital Library Conference in London two workshops took place - both (in parallel) devoted to the use of visualization in presenting and navigating large collections. One was entitled Search Is Over! and of the other Knowledge Maps and Information Retrieval. This anecdotal evidence stands for the growing and accelerating quest for visually enhanced interfaces to collections. Researchers from information visualization, computer human interaction, information retrieval, bibliometrics, digital humanities, art and network theory in parallel, often also in ignorance of each other, sometimes in interdisciplinary alliances are engaged in this quest. This paper reviews the current state-of-the-art, with special emphasis on the work of the COST Action TD1210 Knowescape. We discuss in more depth two examples of the use of visual analytics to create a fingerprint of an archive or a library, a data archive and a national library. We present examples from the micro-level of monitoring activities of users, over the meso-level to visualize features of bibliographic records, to macroscopes (a term coined by Katy Borner) into libraries and archives. We also discuss how different ways to perform visual analytics inform each other, how they are related to questions of data mining and statistical analysis, and which methods need to be combined or which communities need to collaborate. To illustrate some of these points we analysed Universal Decimal Classification (UDC) codes in bibliographic datasets of the National Library of Portugal. This is a potential still awaiting to be fully exploited in improving interfaces to subject access and management of classification data. It should be noted that UDC notation strings stored in bibliographic databases require specialist knowledge in both UDC and programming for any visualization tools to be applied. This UDC Seminar which is devoted to authority control is an opportunity to draw attention to the possibilities in visualization whose wider application depends on the readily structured, richer and more transparent subject metadata.

0.0019710518 = product of:
  0.007884207 = sum of:
    0.007884207 = product of:
      0.015768414 = sum of:
        0.015768414 = weight(_text_:22 in 1919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.015768414 = score(doc=1919,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.16302267 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046553567 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(1/4)

Date

12. 6.2008 20:18:22