Search (72 results, page 1 of 4)

0.03065405 = product of:
  0.081744134 = sum of:
    0.042238384 = weight(_text_:web in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.042238384 = score(doc=444,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13805464 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = 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)
    0.01728395 = weight(_text_:information in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01728395 = score(doc=444,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
    0.022221804 = product of:
      0.044443607 = sum of:
        0.044443607 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 444) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.044443607 = score(doc=444,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = queryNorm
            0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 444, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=444)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

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

0.02713795 = product of:
  0.07236787 = sum of:
    0.03484489 = weight(_text_:web in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03484489 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13805464 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = 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)
    0.017463064 = weight(_text_:information in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017463064 = score(doc=3494,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.23515764 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
    0.020059915 = product of:
      0.04011983 = sum of:
        0.04011983 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04011983 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14813614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = 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)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

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

0.025292415 = product of:
  0.06744644 = sum of:
    0.034524977 = weight(_text_:world in 3023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034524977 = score(doc=3023,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16259687 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.21233483 = fieldWeight in 3023, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3023)
    0.014403292 = weight(_text_:information in 3023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014403292 = score(doc=3023,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 3023, 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=3023)
    0.018518168 = product of:
      0.037036337 = sum of:
        0.037036337 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.037036337 = score(doc=3023,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = queryNorm
            0.28943354 = fieldWeight in 3023, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3023)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

Relationships between Knowledge Organization in LIS and Scientific & Scholarly Classifications In her paper "Classification for Information Retrieval and Classification for Knowledge Discovery: Relationships between 'Professional' and 'Naive' Classifications" (KO v30, no.2, 2003), Beghtol outlines how Scholarly activities and research lead to classification systems which subsequently are disseminated in publications which are classified in information retrieval systems, retrieved by the users and again used in Scholarly activities and so on. We think this model is correct and that its point is important. What we are reacting to is the fact that Beghtol describes the Classifications developed by scholars as "naive" while she describes the Classifications developed by librarians and information scientists as "professional." We fear that this unfortunate terminology is rooted in deeply ar chored misjudgments about the relationships between scientific and Scholarly classification an the one side and LIS Classifications an the other. Only a correction of this misjudgment may give us in the field of knowledge organization a Chance to do a job that is not totally disrespected and disregarded by the rest of the intellectual world.

Footnote

Bezugnahme auf: Beghtol, C.: Classification for information retrieval and classification for knowledge discovery: relationships between 'professional' and 'naive' classifications" in: Knowledge organization. 30(2003), no.2, S.64-73; vgl. dazu auch die Erwiderung von C. Beghtol in: Knowledge organization. 31(2004) no.1, S.62-63.

0.02453902 = product of:
  0.09815608 = sum of:
    0.019324046 = weight(_text_:information in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019324046 = score(doc=4359,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 4359, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4359)
    0.07883203 = sum of:
      0.044443607 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.044443607 = score(doc=4359,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.042302497 = queryNorm
          0.34732026 = fieldWeight in 4359, product of:
            2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
              6.0 = termFreq=6.0
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4359)
      0.034388427 = weight(_text_:22 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.034388427 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14813614 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.042302497 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

A recent study in information science (IS), raises important issues concerning the value of human indexing and basic theories of indexing and information retrieval, as well as the use of quantitative and qualitative approaches in IS and the underlying theories of knowledge informing the field. The present article uses L&E as the point of departure for demonstrating in what way more social and interpretative understandings may provide fruitful improvements for research in indexing, knowledge organization, and information retrieval. The artcle is motivated by the observation that philosophical contributions tend to be ignored in IS if they are not directly formed as criticisms or invitations to dialogs. It is part of the author's ongoing publication of articles about philosophical issues in IS and it is intended to be followed by analyzes of other examples of contributions to core issues in IS. Although it is formulated as a criticism of a specific paper, it should be seen as part of a general discussion of the philosophical foundation of IS and as a support to the emerging social paradigm in this field.

Date

17. 3.2011 19:22:55

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.1, S.72-77

0.023859402 = product of:
  0.09543761 = sum of:
    0.014403292 = weight(_text_:information in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014403292 = score(doc=1398,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 1398, 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=1398)
    0.08103432 = sum of:
      0.05237729 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.05237729 = score(doc=1398,freq=12.0), product of:
          0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.042302497 = queryNorm
          0.40932083 = fieldWeight in 1398, product of:
            3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
              12.0 = termFreq=12.0
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1398)
      0.028657023 = weight(_text_:22 in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.028657023 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14813614 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.042302497 = 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)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

This paper considers classical bibliographic databases based on the Boolean retrieval model (for example MEDLINE and PsycInfo). This model is challenged by modern search engines and information retrieval (IR) researchers, who often consider Boolean retrieval as a less efficient approach. This speech examines this claim and argues for the continued value of Boolean systems, which implies two further issues: (1) the important role of human expertise in searching (expert searchers and "information literacy") and (2) the role of knowledge organization (KO) in the design and use of classical databases, including controlled vocabularies and human indexing. An underlying issue is the kind of retrieval system for which one should aim. It is suggested that Julian Warner's (2010) differentiation between the computer science traditions, aiming at automatically transforming queries into (ranked) sets of relevant documents, and an older library-orientated tradition aiming at increasing the "selection power" of users seems important. The Boolean retrieval model is important in order to provide users with the power to make informed searches and have full control over what is found and what is not found. These issues may also have important implications for the maintenance of information science and KO as research fields as well as for the information profession as a profession in its own right.

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

0.022418454 = product of:
  0.08967382 = sum of:
    0.0772002 = weight(_text_:world in 4626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0772002 = score(doc=4626,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.16259687 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.4747951 = fieldWeight in 4626, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4626)
    0.012473618 = weight(_text_:information in 4626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012473618 = score(doc=4626,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 4626, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4626)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to make a critical analysis of the views put forward by Claudio Gnoli (2018) in this paper concerning philosophical problems in library and information science (LIS). Design/methodology/approach The paper presents the basic ideas in Gnoli (2018) and discusses the set of basic assumptions, concepts and conclusions put forward. Findings It is argued that the idea of the theory of levels is basically sound, but we do not need to consider the material world, the mental world (minds) and the world of mentefacts as three different worlds. They represent different levels with different kinds of emergent properties in the world. Further, although the concepts of artifacts and mentefacts are useful, there are other terms within LIS, such as document, work and object that have been influential and should be discussed in this context. It is also argued that subjective vs objective knowledge is often confused with private vs public knowledge, which is problematic. Finally, it is claimed that the cognitive view and the "sociological view" are not about two different levels of reality but are competing views about the same reality. Originality/value The paper clarifies some aspects of the analytical framework of domain analysis and adds to the developments of the philosophical dimensions of information within LIS.

0.02204126 = product of:
  0.05877669 = sum of:
    0.03670178 = weight(_text_:wide in 2290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03670178 = score(doc=2290,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.18743214 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.1958137 = fieldWeight in 2290, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2290)
    0.009978894 = weight(_text_:information in 2290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009978894 = score(doc=2290,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.1343758 = fieldWeight in 2290, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2290)
    0.012096017 = product of:
      0.024192033 = sum of:
        0.024192033 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2290) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024192033 = score(doc=2290,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = queryNorm
            0.18905719 = fieldWeight in 2290, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=2290)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

This article is organized in 10 sections: (1) Knowledge Organization (KO) is a wide interdisciplinary field, muck broader than Library and Information Science (LIS). (2) Inside LIS there have been many different approaches and traditions of KO with little mutual influence. These traditions have to a large extent been defined by new technology, for which reason the theoretical integration and underpinning has not been well considered. The most important technology-driven traditions are: a) Manual indexing and classification in libraries and reference works, b) Documentation and scientific communication, c) Information storage and retrieval by computers, d) Citation based KO and e) Full text, hypertext and Internet based approaches. These traditions taken together define very muck the special LIS focus an KO. For KO as a field of research it is important to establish a fruitful theoretical frame of reference for this overall field. This paper provides some suggestions. (3) One important theoretical distinction to consider is the one between social and intellectual forms of KO. Social forms of KO are related to professional training, disciplines and social groups while intellectual organization is related to concepts and theories in the fields to be organized. (4) The social perspective includes in addition the systems of genres and documents as well as the social system of knowledge Producers, knowledge intermediaries and knowledge users. (5) This social system of documents, genres and agents makes available a very complicated structure of potential subject access points (SAPs), which may be used in information retrieval (IR). The basic alm of research in KO is to develop knowledge an how to optimise this system of SAPs and its utilization in IR. (6) SAPs may be seen as signs, and their production and use may be understood from a social semiotic point of view. (7) The concept of paradigms is also helpful because different groups and interests tend to be organized according to a paradigm and to develop different criteria of relevance, and thus different criteria of likeliness in KO. (8) The basic unit in KO is the semantic relation between two concepts, and such relations are embedded in theories. (9) In classification like things are grouped together, but what is considered similar is not a trivial question. (10) The paper concludes with the considering of methods for KO. Basically the methods of any field are connected with epistemological theories. This is also the case with KO. The existing methods as described in the literature of KO fit into a classification of basic epistemological views. The debate about the methods of KO at the deepest level therefore implies an epistemological discussion.

0.018218175 = product of:
  0.048581798 = sum of:
    0.017262489 = weight(_text_:world in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017262489 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16259687 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.10616741 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
    0.024155054 = weight(_text_:information in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024155054 = score(doc=2748,freq=90.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.32527196 = fieldWeight in 2748, product of:
          9.486833 = tf(freq=90.0), with freq of:
            90.0 = termFreq=90.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=2748)
    0.0071642557 = product of:
      0.014328511 = sum of:
        0.014328511 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.014328511 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.14813614 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = 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)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Content

"This letter considers some main arguments in Professor Bates' article (2008), which is part of our former debate (Bates, 2005,2006; Hjoerland, 2007). Bates (2008) does not write much to restate or enlarge on her theoretical position but is mostly arguing about what she claims Hjorland (2007) ignored or misinterpreted in her two articles. Bates (2008, p. 842) wrote that my arguments did not reflect "a standard of coherence, consistency, and logic that is expected of an argument presented in a scientific journal." My argumentation below will refute this statement. This controversy is whether information should be understood as a subjective phenomenon (alone), as an objective phenomenon (alone), or as a combined objective and a subjective phenomenon ("having it both ways"). Bates (2006) defined "information" (sometimes, e.g., termed "information 1," p. 1042) as an objective phenomenon and "information 2" as a subjective phenomenon. However, sometimes the term "information" is also used as a synonym for "information 2," e.g., "the term information is understood to refer to one or both senses" (p. 1042). Thus, Professor Bates is not consistent in using the terminology that she herself introduces, and confusion in this controversy may be caused by Professor Bates' ambiguity in her use of the term "information." Bates (2006, p. 1033) defined information as an objective phenomenon by joining a definition by Edwin Parker: "Information is the pattern of organization of matter and energy." The argument in Hjoerland (2007) is, by contrast, that information should be understood as a subjective phenomenon all the way down: That neither the objective definition of information nor "having it both ways" is fruitful. This is expressed, for example, by joining Karpatschof's (2000) definition of information as a physical signal relative to a certain release mechanism, which implies that information is not something objective that can be understood independently of an observer or independently of other kinds of mechanism that are programmed to be sensitive to specific attributes of a signal: There are many differences in the world, and each of them is potentially informative in given situations. Regarding Parker's definition, "patterns of organization of matter and energy" are no more than that until they inform somebody about something. When they inform somebody about something, they may be considered information. The following quote is part of the argumentation in Bates (2008): "He contrasts my definition of information as 'observer-independent' with his position that information is 'situational' and adds a list of respected names on the situational side (Hjoerland, 2007, p. 1448). What this sentence, and much of the remainder of his argument, ignores is the fact that my approach accounts for both an observer-independent and a contextual, situational sense of information." Yes, it is correct that I mostly concentrated on refuting Bates' objective definition of information. It is as if Bates expects an overall appraisal of her work rather than providing a specific analysis of the points on which there are disagreements. I see Bates' "having it both ways": a symptom of inconsistence in argumentation.
Bates (2008, p. 843) further writes about her definition of information: "This is the objectivist foundation, the rock bottom minimum of the meaning of information; it informs both articles throughout." This is exactly the focus of my disagreement. If we take a word in a language, it is understood as both being a "pattern of organization of matter and energy" (e.g., a sound) and carrying meaning. But the relation between the physical sign and its meaning is considered an arbitrary relation in linguistics. Any physical material has the potential of carrying any meaning and to inform somebody. The physical stuff in itself is not information until it is used as a sign. An important issue in this debate is whether Bates' examples demonstrate the usefulness of her own position as opposed to mine. Her example about information seeking concerning navigation and how "the very layout of the ship and the design of the bridge promoted the smooth flow of information from the exterior of the ship to the crew and among the crewmembers" (Bates, 2006, pp. 1042-1043) does not justify Bates' definition of information as an objective phenomenon. The design is made for a purpose, and this purpose determines how information should be defined in this context. Bates' view on "curatorial sciences" (2006, p. 1043) is close to Hjorland's suggestions (2000) about "memory institutions," which is based on the subjective understanding of information. However, she does not relate to this proposal, and she does not argue how the objective understanding of information is related to this example. I therefore conclude that Bates' practical examples do not support her objective definition of information, nor do they support her "having it both ways." Finally, I exemplify the consequences of my understanding of information by showing how an archaeologist and a geologist might represent the same stone differently in information systems. Bates (2008, p. 843) writes about this example: "This position is completely consistent with mine." However, this "consistency" was not recognized by Bates until I published my objections and, therefore, this is an indication that my criticism was needed. I certainly share Professor Bates (2008) advice to read her original articles: They contain much important stuff. I just recommend that the reader ignore the parts that argue about information being an objective phenomenon."
References Bates, M.J. (2005). Information and knowledge: An evolutionary framework for information science. Information Research, 10(4), paper 239. Available at http://InformationR.net/ir/10-4/paper239.html. Bates, M.J. (2006). Fundamental forms of information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(8), 1033-1045. Bates, M.J. (2008). Hjorland's critique of Bates' work on defining information. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(5), 842-844. Hjoerland, B. (2000). Documents, memory institutions, and information science. Journal of Documentation, 56, 27-41. Hjoerland, B. (2007). Information: Objective or subjective-situational? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58(10), 1448-1456. Karpatschof, B. (2000). Human activity. Contributions to the anthropological sciences from a perspective of activity theory. Copenhagen: Dansk Psykologisk Forlag. Retrieved May 14, 2007, from http://informationr.net/ir/ 12-3/Karpatschof/Karp00.html.

Date

22. 3.2009 18:13:27

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.3, S.643

Theme

Information

0.01800387 = product of:
  0.07201548 = sum of:
    0.02016461 = weight(_text_:information in 3826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02016461 = score(doc=3826,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 3826, 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=3826)
    0.05185087 = product of:
      0.10370174 = sum of:
        0.10370174 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3826) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.10370174 = score(doc=3826,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = queryNorm
            0.8104139 = fieldWeight in 3826, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.109375 = fieldNorm(doc=3826)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 35(2001), S.249-298

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval
Verbale Doksprachen im Online-Retrieval

0.014452121 = product of:
  0.057808485 = sum of:
    0.03188305 = weight(_text_:information in 1853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03188305 = score(doc=1853,freq=20.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.42933714 = fieldWeight in 1853, product of:
          4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
            20.0 = termFreq=20.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1853)
    0.025925435 = product of:
      0.05185087 = sum of:
        0.05185087 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1853) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05185087 = score(doc=1853,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = queryNorm
            0.40520695 = fieldWeight in 1853, 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=1853)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Scholars have uncovered abundant data about the history of the term "information," as well as some of its many combined phrases (e.g., "information science," "information retrieval," and "information technology"). Many other compounds that involve "information" seem, however, not to have a known origin yet. In this article, further information about the phrase "information storage and retrieval" is provided. Knowing the history of terms and their associated concepts is an important prescription against poor terminological phrasing and theoretical confusion.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.6, S.1299-1302

Theme

Information

0.013805335 = product of:
  0.05522134 = sum of:
    0.029295415 = weight(_text_:world in 5079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029295415 = score(doc=5079,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16259687 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.18017207 = fieldWeight in 5079, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5079)
    0.025925925 = weight(_text_:information in 5079) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.025925925 = score(doc=5079,freq=72.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.34911853 = fieldWeight in 5079, product of:
          8.485281 = tf(freq=72.0), with freq of:
            72.0 = termFreq=72.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=5079)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

The concept of information as we use it in everyday English, in the sense of knowledge communicated, plays a central role in contemporary society. The development and widespread use of computer networks since the end of World War II, and the emergence of information science as a discipline in the 1950s, are evidence of this focus. Although knowledge and its communication are basic phenomena of every human society, it is the rise of information technology and its global impacts that characterize ours as an information society. It is commonplace to consider information as a basic condition for economic development together with capital, labor, and raw material; but what makes information especially significant at present is its digital nature. The impact of information technology an the natural and social sciences in particular has made this everyday notion a highly controversial concept. Claude Shannon's (1948) "A Mathematical Theory of Communication" is a landmark work, referring to the common use of information with its semantic and pragmatic dimensions, while at the same time redefining the concept within an engineering framework. The fact that the concept of knowledge communication has been designated by the word information seems, prima facie, a linguistic happenstance. For a science like information science (IS), it is of course important how fundamental terms are defined; and in IS, as in other fields, the question of how to define information is often raised. This chapter is an attempt to review the status of the concept of information in IS, with reference also to interdisciplinary trends. In scientific discourse, theoretical concepts are not true or false elements or glimpses of some element of reality; rather, they are constructions designed to do a job in the best possible way. Different conceptions of fundamental terms like information are thus more or less fruitful, depending an the theories (and in the end, the practical actions) they are expected to support. In the opening section, we discuss the problem of defining terms from the perspective of the philosophy of science. The history of a word provides us with anecdotes that are tangential to the concept itself. But in our case, the use of the word information points to a specific perspective from which the concept of knowledge communication has been defined. This perspective includes such characteristics as novelty and relevante; i.e., it refers to the process of knowledge transformation, and particularly to selection and interpretation within a specific context. The discussion leads to the questions of why and when this meaning was designated with the word information. We will explore this history, and we believe that our results may help readers better understand the complexity of the concept with regard to its scientific definitions.
Discussions about the concept of information in other disciplines are very important for IS because many theories and approaches in IS have their origins elsewhere (see the section "Information as an Interdisciplinary Concept" in this chapter). The epistemological concept of information brings into play nonhuman information processes, particularly in physics and biology. And vice versa: the psychic and sociological processes of selection and interpretation may be considered using objective parameters, leaving aside the semantic dimension, or more precisely, by considering objective or situational parameters of interpretation. This concept can be illustrated also in physical terms with regard to release mechanisms, as we suggest. Our overview of the concept of information in the natural sciences as well as in the humanities and social sciences cannot hope to be comprehensive. In most cases, we can refer only to fragments of theories. However, the reader may wish to follow the leads provided in the bibliography. Readers interested primarily in information science may derive most benefit from the section an "Information in Information Science," in which we offer a detailed explanation of diverse views and theories of information within our field; supplementing the recent ARIST chapter by Cornelius (2002). We show that the introduction of the concept of information circa 1950 to the domain of special librarianship and documentation has in itself had serious consequences for the types of knowledge and theories developed in our field. The important question is not only what meaning we give the term in IS, but also how it relates to other basic terms, such as documents, texts, and knowledge. Starting with an objectivist view from the world of information theory and cybernetics, information science has turned to the phenomena of relevance and interpretation as basic aspects of the concept of information. This change is in no way a turn to a subjectivist theory, but an appraisal of different perspectives that may determine in a particular context what is being considered as informative, be it a "thing" (Buckland, 1991b) or a document. Different concepts of information within information science reflect tensions between a subjective and an objective approach. The concept of interpretation or selection may be considered to be the bridge between these two poles. It is important, however, to consider the different professions involved with the interpretation and selection of knowledge. The most important thing in IS (as in information policy) is to consider information as a constitutive forte in society and, thus, recognize the teleological nature of information systems and services (Braman, 1989).

Source

Annual review of information science and technology. 37(2003), S.343-411

Theme

Information

0.012473546 = product of:
  0.049894184 = sum of:
    0.034926128 = weight(_text_:information in 1118) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034926128 = score(doc=1118,freq=24.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.47031528 = fieldWeight in 1118, product of:
          4.8989797 = tf(freq=24.0), with freq of:
            24.0 = termFreq=24.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1118)
    0.014968057 = product of:
      0.029936114 = sum of:
        0.029936114 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1118) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029936114 = score(doc=1118,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = queryNorm
            0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 1118, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=1118)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

This article presents a brief history of the term "information" and its different meanings, which are both important and difficult because the different meanings of the term imply whole theories of knowledge. The article further considers the relation between "information" and the concepts "matter and energy", "data", "sign and meaning", "knowledge" and "communication". It presents and analyses the influence of information in information studies and knowledge organization and contains a presentation and critical analysis of some compound terms such as "information need", "information overload" and "information retrieval", which illuminate the use of the term information in information studies. An appendix provides a chronological list of definitions of information.

Theme

Information

0.012101819 = product of:
  0.048407275 = sum of:
    0.03343922 = weight(_text_:information in 4723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03343922 = score(doc=4723,freq=22.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.45029256 = fieldWeight in 4723, product of:
          4.690416 = tf(freq=22.0), with freq of:
            22.0 = termFreq=22.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4723)
    0.014968057 = product of:
      0.029936114 = sum of:
        0.029936114 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 4723) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.029936114 = score(doc=4723,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = queryNorm
            0.23394634 = fieldWeight in 4723, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=4723)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Epistemological theories of information science have a fundamental impact on theories about users, their cognition and information seeking behaviour, on subject analysis, and on classification. They also have a fundamental impact on information retrieval, on the understanding of 'information', on the view of documents and their role in communication, on information selection, on theories about the functions of information systems and on the role of information professionals. Asserts that information science must be based on epistemological knowledge, which avoids blind alleys and is not outdated. Shows limitations in the dominant approaches to information science and proposes alternative viewpoints

Theme

Information

0.011787749 = product of:
  0.047150996 = sum of:
    0.029867046 = weight(_text_:web in 639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.029867046 = score(doc=639,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13805464 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = 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)
    0.01728395 = weight(_text_:information in 639) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01728395 = score(doc=639,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 639, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=639)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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.

0.01095725 = product of:
  0.043829 = sum of:
    0.017640358 = weight(_text_:information in 2124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.017640358 = score(doc=2124,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.23754507 = fieldWeight in 2124, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2124)
    0.026188646 = product of:
      0.05237729 = sum of:
        0.05237729 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2124) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05237729 = score(doc=2124,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = queryNorm
            0.40932083 = fieldWeight in 2124, product of:
              3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
                12.0 = termFreq=12.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2124)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

This paper considers classical bibliographic databases based on the Boolean retrieval model (such as MEDLINE and PsycInfo). This model is challenged by modern search engines and information retrieval (IR) researchers, who often consider Boolean retrieval a less efficient approach. The paper examines this claim and argues for the continued value of Boolean systems, and suggests two further considerations: (a) the important role of human expertise in searching (expert searchers and "information literate" users) and (b) the role of library and information science and knowledge organization (KO) in the design and use of classical databases. An underlying issue is the kind of retrieval system for which one should aim. Warner's (2010) differentiation between the computer science traditions and an older library-oriented tradition seems important; the former aim to transform queries automatically into (ranked) sets of relevant documents, whereas the latter aims to increase the "selection power" of users. The Boolean retrieval model is valuable in providing users with the power to make informed searches and have full control over what is found and what is not. These issues may have significant implications for the maintenance of information science and KO as research fields as well as for the information profession as a profession in its own right.

Source

Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.8, S.1559-1575

0.010431656 = product of:
  0.041726623 = sum of:
    0.034524977 = weight(_text_:world in 1131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034524977 = score(doc=1131,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16259687 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.21233483 = fieldWeight in 1131, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1131)
    0.007201646 = weight(_text_:information in 1131) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007201646 = score(doc=1131,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1131, 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=1131)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Section 1 of this article discusses the concept of bibliographical control and makes a distinction between this term, "bibliographical description," and related terms, which are often confused in the literature. It further discusses the function of bibliographical control and criticizes Patrick Wilson's distinction between "exploitative control" and "descriptive control." Section 2 presents projects for establishing bibliographic control from the Library of Alexandria to the Internet and Google, and it is found that these projects have often been dominated by a positivist dream to make all information in the world available to everybody. Section 3 discusses the theoretical problems of providing comprehensive coverage and retrieving documents represented in databases and argues that 100% coverage and retrievability is an unobtainable ideal. It is shown that bibliographical control has been taken very seriously in the field of medicine, where knowledge of the most important findings is of utmost importance. In principle, it is equally important in all other domains. The conclusion states that the alternative to a positivist dream of complete bibliographic control is a pragmatic philosophy aiming at optimizing bibliographic control supporting specific activities, perspectives, and interests.

0.009828113 = product of:
  0.039312452 = sum of:
    0.02116843 = weight(_text_:information in 304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02116843 = score(doc=304,freq=12.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.2850541 = fieldWeight in 304, product of:
          3.4641016 = tf(freq=12.0), with freq of:
            12.0 = termFreq=12.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=304)
    0.018144025 = product of:
      0.03628805 = sum of:
        0.03628805 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 304) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03628805 = score(doc=304,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = queryNorm
            0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 304, 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=304)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

This article presents a socio-cognitive perspective in relation to information science (IS) and information retrieval (IR). The differences between traditional cognitive views and the socio-cognitive or domain-analytic view are outlined. It is claimed that, given elementary skills in computer-based retrieval, people are basically interacting with representations of subject literatures in IR. The kind of knowledge needed to interact with representations of subject literatures is discussed. It is shown how different approaches or "paradigms" in the represented literature imply different information needs and relevance criteria (which users typically cannot express very well, which is why IS cannot primarily rely on user studies). These principles are exemplified by comparing behaviorism, cognitivism, psychoanalysis, and neuroscience as approaches in psychology. The relevance criteria implicit in each position are outlined, and empirical data are provided to prove the theoretical claims. It is further shown that the most general level of relevance criteria is implied by epistemological theories. The article concludes that the fundamental problems of IS and IR are based in epistemology, which therefore becomes the most important allied field for IS.

Source

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and technology. 53(2002) no.4, S.257-270

Theme

Information

0.009367017 = product of:
  0.03746807 = sum of:
    0.019324046 = weight(_text_:information in 649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.019324046 = score(doc=649,freq=10.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.2602176 = fieldWeight in 649, product of:
          3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
            10.0 = termFreq=10.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=649)
    0.018144025 = product of:
      0.03628805 = sum of:
        0.03628805 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 649) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03628805 = score(doc=649,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = queryNorm
            0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 649, 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=649)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Information science (IS) is concerned with the searching and retrieval of text and other information (IR), mostly in electronic databases and on the Internet. Such databases contain fulltext (or other kinds of documents, e.g. pictures) and/or document representations and/or different kinds of 'value added information'. The core theoretical problems for IS is related to the determination of the usefulness of different 'subject access points' in electronic databases. This problem is again related to theories of meaning and semantics. This paper outlines some important principles in the design of documents done in the field of 'composition studies'. It maps the possible subject access points and presents research done on each kind of these. It shows how theorie of IR must build on or relate to different theories of concepts and meaning. It discusses 2 contrasting theories of semantics worked out by Ludwig Wittgenstein: 'the picture theory' and 'the theory od language games' and demonstrates the different consequences for such theories for IR. Finally, the implications for information professionals are discussed

0.009095117 = product of:
  0.03638047 = sum of:
    0.012473618 = weight(_text_:information in 1892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012473618 = score(doc=1892,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 1892, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1892)
    0.023906851 = product of:
      0.047813702 = sum of:
        0.047813702 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1892) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.047813702 = score(doc=1892,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = queryNorm
            0.37365708 = fieldWeight in 1892, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1892)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Purpose - To suggest that a theory of classification for information retrieval (IR), asked for by Spärck Jones in a 1970 paper, presupposes a full implementation of a pragmatic understanding. Part of the Journal of Documentation celebration, "60 years of the best in information research". Design/methodology/approach - Literature-based conceptual analysis, taking Sparck Jones as its starting-point. Analysis involves distinctions between "positivism" and "pragmatism" and "classical" versus Kuhnian understandings of concepts. Findings - Classification, both manual and automatic, for retrieval benefits from drawing upon a combination of qualitative and quantitative techniques, a consideration of theories of meaning, and the adding of top-down approaches to IR in which divisions of labour, domains, traditions, genres, document architectures etc. are included as analytical elements and in which specific IR algorithms are based on the examination of specific literatures. Introduces an example illustrating the consequences of a full implementation of a pragmatist understanding when handling homonyms. Practical implications - Outlines how to classify from a pragmatic-philosophical point of view. Originality/value - Provides, emphasizing a pragmatic understanding, insights of importance to classification for retrieval, both manual and automatic. - Vgl. auch: Szostak, R.: Classification, interdisciplinarity, and the study of science. In: Journal of documentation. 64(2008) no.3, S.319-332.

Theme

Klassifikationssysteme im Online-Retrieval

0.008856993 = product of:
  0.035427973 = sum of:
    0.01728395 = weight(_text_:information in 206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01728395 = score(doc=206,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 206, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=206)
    0.018144025 = product of:
      0.03628805 = sum of:
        0.03628805 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03628805 = score(doc=206,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = queryNorm
            0.2835858 = fieldWeight in 206, 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=206)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Information retrieval (IR) is about making systems for finding documents or information. Knowledge organization (KO) is the field concerned with indexing, classification, and representing documents for IR, browsing, and related processes, whether performed by humans or computers. The field of IR is today dominated by search engines like Google. An important difference between KO and IR as research fields is that KO attempts to reflect knowledge as depicted by contemporary scholarship, in contrast to IR, which is based on, for example, "match" techniques, popularity measures or personalization principles. The classification of documents in KO mostly aims at reflecting the classification of knowledge in the sciences. Books about birds, for example, mostly reflect (or aim at reflecting) how birds are classified in ornithology. KO therefore requires access to the adequate subject knowledge; however, this is often characterized by disagreements. At the deepest layer, such disagreements are based on philosophical issues best characterized as "paradigms". No IR technology and no system of knowledge organization can ever be neutral in relation to paradigmatic conflicts, and therefore such philosophical problems represent the basis for the study of IR and KO.

Source

Information 12(2021) 26 S