Search (53 results, page 1 of 3)

0.10919273 = product of:
  0.17470837 = sum of:
    0.04882569 = weight(_text_:world in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04882569 = score(doc=260,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.16259687 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.30028677 = fieldWeight in 260, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=260)
    0.0648802 = weight(_text_:wide in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0648802 = score(doc=260,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.18743214 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.34615302 = fieldWeight in 260, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          4.4307585 = idf(docFreq=1430, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=260)
    0.04310937 = weight(_text_:web in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04310937 = score(doc=260,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.13805464 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.3122631 = fieldWeight in 260, product of:
          2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
            6.0 = termFreq=6.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=260)
    0.007201646 = weight(_text_:information in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007201646 = score(doc=260,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 260, 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=260)
    0.01069147 = product of:
      0.02138294 = sum of:
        0.02138294 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 260) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02138294 = score(doc=260,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 260, 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=260)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.625 = coord(5/8)

Abstract

Studying works allows us to see empirically the problem of instantiation of works, both at large and in the catalog. The linkage of relationships among works is a critical goal for information retrieval because the ability to comprehend and select a specific instantiation of a work is crucial for the advancement of scholarship. Hence, the present study examines the instantiation of works among a set of entities known to be popular-best selling books of the 20th century. A sample of best selling works (fiction and non-fiction) from 1900-1999 was constructed. For each work in the sample, all bibliographic records were identified in both OCLC and RLIN as well as instantiations on the World Wide Web. All but one work in the sample exists in multiple instantiations; many have large networks; and complex networks of instantiations have begun to appear in full text on the Web. The results of this study demonstrate the importance of continuing to gather statistical data about works. Solutions devised for the catalog will need to be modified for use in the chaotic environment of the World Wide Web and its successors.

0.019909415 = product of:
  0.053091772 = sum of:
    0.035198655 = weight(_text_:web in 2099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035198655 = score(doc=2099,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13805464 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 2099, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2099)
    0.007201646 = weight(_text_:information in 2099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007201646 = score(doc=2099,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 2099, 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=2099)
    0.01069147 = product of:
      0.02138294 = sum of:
        0.02138294 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 2099) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02138294 = score(doc=2099,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 2099, 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=2099)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

In KO volume 40 number 3 (2013) I included an editorial about keywords-both about the absence prior to that date of designated keywords in articles in Knowledge Organization, and about the misuse of the idea by some other journal publications (Smiraglia 2013). At the time I was chagrined to discover how little correlation there was across the formal indexing of a small set of papers from our journal, and especially to see how little correspondence there was between actual keywords appearing in the published texts, and any of the indexing supplied by either Web of Science or LISTA (Thomson Reuters' Web of ScienceT (WoS) and EBSCOHost's Library and Information Science and Technology Abstracts with Full Text (LISTA). The idea of a keyword arose in the early days of automated indexing, when it was discovered that using terms that actually occurred in full texts (or, in the earliest days, in titles and abstracts) as search "keys," usually in Boolean combinations, provided fairly precise recall in small, contextually confined text corpora. A recent Wikipedia entry (Keywords 2015) embues keywords with properties of structural reasoning, but notes that they are "key" among the most frequently occurring terms in a text corpus. The jury is still out on whether keyword retrieval is better than indexing with subject headings, but in general, keyword searches in large, unstructured text corpora (which is what we have today) are imprecise and result in large recall sets with many irrelevant hits (see the recent analysis by Gross, Taylor and Joudrey (2014). Thus it seems inadvisable to me, as editor, especially of a journal on knowledge organization, to facilitate imprecise indexing of our journal's content.

0.018743988 = product of:
  0.04998397 = sum of:
    0.024889207 = weight(_text_:web in 3855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024889207 = score(doc=3855,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13805464 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 3855, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3855)
    0.014403292 = weight(_text_:information in 3855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.014403292 = score(doc=3855,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 3855, 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=3855)
    0.01069147 = product of:
      0.02138294 = sum of:
        0.02138294 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3855) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02138294 = score(doc=3855,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 3855, 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=3855)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

Knowledge Organization Systems (KOSs) use arrays of related concepts to capture the ontological content of a domain; hierarchical structures are typical of such systems. Some KOSs also employ sets of crossconceptual descriptors that express different dimensions within a domain-facets. The recent increase in the prominence of facets and faceted systems has had major impact on the intension of the KO domain and this is visible in the domain's literature. An interesting question is how the discourse surrounding facets in KO and in related domains such as information science might be described. The present paper reports one case study in an ongoing research project to investigate the discourse of facets in KO. In this particular case, the formal current research literature represented by inclusion in the "Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts, Full Text" (LISTA) database is analyzed to discover aspects of the research front and its ongoing discourse concerning facets. A datasets of 1682 citations was analyzed. Results show thinking concerning information retrieval and the semantic web resides alongside implementation of faceted searching and the growth of faceted thesauri. Faceted classification remains important to the discourse, but the use of facet analysis is linked directly to applied aspects of information science.

0.01604337 = product of:
  0.04278232 = sum of:
    0.024889207 = weight(_text_:web in 3627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024889207 = score(doc=3627,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13805464 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 3627, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3627)
    0.007201646 = weight(_text_:information in 3627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007201646 = score(doc=3627,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 3627, 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=3627)
    0.01069147 = product of:
      0.02138294 = sum of:
        0.02138294 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3627) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.02138294 = score(doc=3627,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = queryNorm
            0.16710453 = fieldWeight in 3627, 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=3627)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Abstract

A very important extension of the traditional domain of knowledge organization (KO) arises from attempts to incorporate techniques devised in the computer science domain for automatic concept extraction and for grouping, categorizing, clustering and otherwise organizing knowledge using mechanical means. Four specific terms have emerged to identify the most prevalent techniques: machine learning, clustering, automatic indexing, and automatic classification. Our study presents three domain analytical case analyses in search of answers. The first case relies on citations located using the ISKO-supported "Knowledge Organization Bibliography." The second case relies on works in both Web of Science and SCOPUS. Case three applies co-word analysis and citation analysis to the contents of the papers in the present special issue. We observe scholars involved in "clustering" and "automatic classification" who share common thematic emphases. But we have found no coherence, no common activity and no social semantics. We have not found a research front, or a common teleology within the KO domain. We also have found a lively group of authors who have succeeded in submitting papers to this special issue, and their work quite interestingly aligns with the case studies we report. There is an emphasis on KO for information retrieval; there is much work on clustering (which involves conceptual points within texts) and automatic classification (which involves semantic groupings at the meta-document level).

0.015958846 = product of:
  0.04255692 = sum of:
    0.012444603 = weight(_text_:web in 1919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012444603 = score(doc=1919,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13805464 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.09014259 = fieldWeight in 1919, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1919)
    0.0050923326 = weight(_text_:information in 1919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.0050923326 = score(doc=1919,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.068573356 = fieldWeight in 1919, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1919)
    0.025019981 = sum of:
      0.01069147 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.01069147 = score(doc=1919,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.042302497 = queryNorm
          0.08355226 = fieldWeight in 1919, product of:
            1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
              2.0 = termFreq=2.0
            3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
            0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=1919)
      0.014328511 = weight(_text_:22 in 1919) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.014328511 = score(doc=1919,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.14813614 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.042302497 = 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)
  0.375 = coord(3/8)

Content

3. A New Perspective: Theme and Variations In musicology there is a factual reality that every sound you hear can be reduced to a sort of calculus that expresses its tonal and metrical relationships. Schenkerian analysis (Forte and Gilbert 1982) is one approach to this. In the end it reveals a singular truth, which is that music (like information) is essentially an ordered accretion of energy. The beauty of this type of analysis is what it reveals when large quantities of music are analyzed-it reveals sets of similarities that might never have been noticed otherwise. The music information retrieval domain has built its technology and its science along these lines. So where does this leave knowledge organization? In the semantic Web and the magical kingdoms that will follow it, it will be necessary to make samenessdifference decisions of a different sort, to provide the ability to make heretofore unimaginable connections. Elsewhere I have asked when a funeral urn is like a ship's log: the answer is when the instantiation set has the same calculus in its scope, which tells us that the two artifacts have approximately equal impact factors along some cultural or social trajectory. These are the sorts of questions knowledge organization can be able to answer if we can move toward a large base of empirical evidence to which similarity measures can be applied and from which new hypotheses can be drawn to direct investigation. Why have these questions not yet been answered? Because they have not yet been posed."

Date

12. 6.2008 20:18:22

0.012525181 = product of:
  0.050100725 = sum of:
    0.02016461 = weight(_text_:information in 5623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.02016461 = score(doc=5623,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.27153665 = fieldWeight in 5623, 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=5623)
    0.029936114 = product of:
      0.05987223 = sum of:
        0.05987223 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5623) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.05987223 = score(doc=5623,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = queryNorm
            0.46789268 = fieldWeight in 5623, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5623)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

The purpose of this volume is to extend our understanding of the work entity and its role in information retrieval. Basic definitions are reviewed to provide a summary of current thought about works, their role in the catalog, and the potential for better accommodating them in future information retrieval environments. A discussion of entities for information retrieval and works as entities follows. Research in knowledge organization is summarized, indicating ways in which ontology, epistemology, and semiotics have lately been used as looking glasses through which to view the social informational roles of works.

Content

Beitrag eines Themenheftes "Works as entities for information retrieval"

0.011493044 = product of:
  0.045972176 = sum of:
    0.01728395 = weight(_text_:information in 1119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.01728395 = score(doc=1119,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.23274569 = fieldWeight in 1119, 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=1119)
    0.028688224 = product of:
      0.057376448 = sum of:
        0.057376448 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 1119) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.057376448 = score(doc=1119,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = queryNorm
            0.44838852 = fieldWeight in 1119, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=1119)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Works are key entities in the universe of recorded knowledge. Works are those deliberate creations (known variously as opera, oeuvres, Werke, etc.) that constitute individual sets of created conceptions that stand as the formal records of knowledge. In the information retrieval domain, the work as opposed to the document, has only recently received focused attention. In this paper, the definition of the work as an entity for information retrieval is examined. A taxonomic definition (that is, a definition built around a taxonomy) is presented. An epistemological perspective aids in understanding the components of the taxonomic definition. Works, thus defined as entities for information retrieval, are seen to constitute sets of varying instantiations of abstract creations. These variant instantiations must be explicitly identified in future systems for documentary information retrieval. An expanded perception of works, such as that presented in this paper, helps us understand the variety of ways in which mechanisms for their control and retrieval might better be shaped in future.

0.010600075 = product of:
  0.0424003 = sum of:
    0.035198655 = weight(_text_:web in 4528) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.035198655 = score(doc=4528,freq=4.0), product of:
        0.13805464 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.25496176 = fieldWeight in 4528, product of:
          2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
            4.0 = termFreq=4.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4528)
    0.007201646 = weight(_text_:information in 4528) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007201646 = score(doc=4528,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 4528, 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=4528)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

The Fifteenth International ISKO Conference (ISKO 15) took place in Porto, Portugal in early July 2018 at the Faculty of Arts and Humanities of the University of Porto, Department of Communication and Information Sciences. The main theme was "challenges and opportunities for knowledge organization in the digital age;" three sub-themes were: foundations and methods, interoperability and societal challenges. A feature of the conference was a special session devoted to the memory of ISKO founder Ingetraut Dahlberg. The proceedings contain 105 formal research papers as well as abstracts for fourteen posters and two workshops. Informetric analyses produce a characteristic picture for an international ISKO conference, with core concepts of KO and KOSs embracing digital age concepts of social media and the semantic web alongside new library conceptual data models. On ISKO 15's bookshelf were articles by Hjørland, Dahlberg, Tennis and Beghtol, and books by Ranganathan and Szostak, Gnoli and López-Huertas. But also books by Adler, García Gutiérrez, Holland and Verborgh and FRBR/LRM were present as were articles by Adler, Kleineberg and Gruber. Core ISKO is joined on this bookshelf by new articles from the ISKO Encyclopedia, by works pointing toward ethical approaches to KO, and by works pointing toward KO for a semantic web-challenges and opportunities for KO, as the conference theme indicated.

0.010431656 = product of:
  0.041726623 = sum of:
    0.034524977 = weight(_text_:world in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.034524977 = score(doc=789,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16259687 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.21233483 = fieldWeight in 789, 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=789)
    0.007201646 = weight(_text_:information in 789) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007201646 = score(doc=789,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 789, 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=789)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Cataloging is at its most interesting when it is comprehended as part of a larger, meaningful, objective. Resource description is a complex task; but the essence of librarianship is curatorship of a collection, and that sense of curatorial responsibility is one of the things that makes resource description into cataloging-that is, professional responsibility is the difference between the task of transcription and the satisfaction of professional decisions well-made. Part of the essential difference is comprehension of the cultural milieu from which specific resources arise, and the modes of scholarship that might be used to nudge them to reveal their secrets for the advancement of knowledge. In this paper I describe a course designed to lend excitement and professional judgment to the education of future catalogers and collection managers by conveying the notion that all documents are, in fact, cultural artifacts. Part of a knowledge-sensitive curriculum for knowledge organization, the purpose of this course is to go beyond the concept of documents as mere packets of information to demonstrate that each is a product of its time and circumstances. Bibliographic skill leads to greater comfort with the intellectual and cultural forces that impel the creation of documents. Students become comfortable with the curatorial side of cataloging - the placement of each document in its cultural milieu as the goal of resource description, rather than the act of description itself.

Footnote

Beitrag eines Themenheftes "The Intellectual and Professional World of Cataloging"

0.010002307 = product of:
  0.040009227 = sum of:
    0.024889207 = weight(_text_:web in 5678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024889207 = score(doc=5678,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13805464 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 5678, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=5678)
    0.01512002 = product of:
      0.03024004 = sum of:
        0.03024004 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5678) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03024004 = score(doc=5678,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = queryNorm
            0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 5678, 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=5678)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Explicit authority control of works is essentially non-existent. Our catalogs are built on a principle of controlling headings, and primarily headings for names of authors. Our syndetic structure creates a spider's web of networked relationships among forms of headings, but it ends there, despite the potential richness of depth among bibliographic entities. Effective authority control of works could yield richness in the catalog that would enhance retrieval capabilities. Works are considered to constitute the intellectual content of informative artifacts that may be collected and ordered for retrieval. In a 1992 study the author examined a random sample of works drawn from the catalog of the Georgetown University Library. For each progenitor work, an instantiation network (also referred to as a bibliographic family) was constituted. A detailed analysis of the linkages that would be required for authority control of these networks is reviewed here. A new study is also presented, in which Library of Congress authority records for the works in this sample are sought and analyzed. Results demonstrate a near total lack of control, with only 5.6% of works for which authority records were found. From a sample of 410 works, of which nearly half have instantiation networks, only 23 works could be said to have implicit authority control. However, many instantiation networks are made up of successive derivations that can be implicitly linked through collocation. The difficult work of explicitly linking instantiations comes with title changes, translations, and containing relations. The empirical evidence in the present study suggests that explicit control of expressions will provide the best control over instantiation networks because it is instantiations such as translations, abridgments, and adaptations that require explicit linking.

0.00939972 = product of:
  0.03759888 = sum of:
    0.027619982 = weight(_text_:world in 1513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.027619982 = score(doc=1513,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16259687 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.16986786 = fieldWeight in 1513, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.03125 = fieldNorm(doc=1513)
    0.009978894 = weight(_text_:information in 1513) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009978894 = score(doc=1513,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.1343758 = fieldWeight in 1513, 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=1513)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

The Elements of Knowledge Organization is a unique and original work introducing the fundamental concepts related to the field of Knowledge Organization (KO). There is no other book like it currently available. The author begins the book with a comprehensive discussion of "knowledge" and its associated theories. He then presents a thorough discussion of the philosophical underpinnings of knowledge organization. The author walks the reader through the Knowledge Organization domain expanding the core topics of ontologies, taxonomies, classification, metadata, thesauri and domain analysis. The author also presents the compelling challenges associated with the organization of knowledge. This is the first book focused on the concepts and theories associated with KO domain. Prior to this book, individuals wishing to study Knowledge Organization in its broadest sense would generally collocate their own resources, navigating the various methods and models and perhaps inadvertently excluding relevant materials. This text cohesively links key and related KO material and provides a deeper understanding of the domain in its broadest sense and with enough detail to truly investigate its many facets. This book will be useful to both graduate and undergraduate students in the computer science and information science domains both as a text and as a reference book. It will also be valuable to researchers and practitioners in the industry who are working on website development, database administration, data mining, data warehousing and data for search engines. The book is also beneficial to anyone interested in the concepts and theories associated with the organization of knowledge. Dr. Richard P. Smiraglia is a world-renowned author who is well published in the Knowledge Organization domain. Dr. Smiraglia is editor-in-chief of the journal Knowledge Organization, published by Ergon-Verlag of Würzburg. He is a professor and member of the Information Organization Research Group at the School of Information Studies at University of Wisconsin Milwaukee.

0.009340706 = product of:
  0.037362825 = sum of:
    0.024889207 = weight(_text_:web in 4830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024889207 = score(doc=4830,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13805464 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 4830, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4830)
    0.012473618 = weight(_text_:information in 4830) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012473618 = score(doc=4830,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 4830, 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=4830)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

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.

0.008464139 = product of:
  0.033856556 = sum of:
    0.012473618 = weight(_text_:information in 3043) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012473618 = score(doc=3043,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 3043, 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=3043)
    0.02138294 = product of:
      0.04276588 = sum of:
        0.04276588 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 3043) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04276588 = score(doc=3043,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = queryNorm
            0.33420905 = fieldWeight in 3043, 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=3043)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

A major problem for bibliographic retrieval is an absence of explicit linkages to guide users among manifestations of a work. The purpose of this research was to enhance the power of bibliographic retrieval systems by providing contextual information about the derivative bibliographic relationship. Descriptive survey method was employed. A sample of 411 works from the Georgetown University on-line catalog was drawn. 49.9% of works were derivative. Age of a progenitor work is the characteristic most strongly associated with derivation; language and country of origin are indifferent predictors. Popularity of works might contribute to the phenomenon of derivation. The mean size of bibliographic families of derivative works was 8.44 members. The majority of bibliographic families had successive derivations, large groups of bibliographic families had translations and simultaneous editions; few had extractions, amplifications, or performances; none had adaptations. Successive derivations are the most commonly found members of bibliographic families, and are associated with most other types of derivation within bibliographic families. The bibliographic data required for explicit control of works might easily be compiled from existing records. The development of bibliographic retrieval systems in the network environment could play a dramatic role in improving retrieval of works

Imprint

Oxford : Learned Information

Source

Navigating the networks: Proceedings of the 1994 Mid-year Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, Portland, Oregon, May 21-25, 1994. Ed.: D.L. Andersen et al

0.0080227135 = product of:
  0.032090854 = sum of:
    0.024889207 = weight(_text_:web in 1390) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.024889207 = score(doc=1390,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13805464 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.18028519 = fieldWeight in 1390, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.2635105 = idf(docFreq=4597, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=1390)
    0.007201646 = weight(_text_:information in 1390) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007201646 = score(doc=1390,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1390, 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=1390)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

Recently I was asked in earnest why KO doesn't have keywords. To which my reply was to LOL. Really-I laughed, out loud, and then I said "but it does, in every line!" I decided to undertake a little editorial experiment by using the contents of the last two issues of Knowledge Organization - Volume 40 (2013) number 1 contained an editorial, 4 peer-reviewed articles, a book review, a classification issues report, and two substantive letters to the editor. Volume 40 (2013) number 2 contained 5 peer-reviewed articles, some ISKO news, and a bibliographic essay book review; unfortunately at the time this was written number 2 had not been indexed by either service. I decided to compare keywords drawn from Thompson Reuters' Web of ScienceT and EBSCOHost's Library and Information Science and Technology Abstracts with Full Text (LISTA) to the actual keywords pulled from the texts. Full texts were uploaded to Voyeur from Hermeneutica.ca -The Rhetoric of Text Analysis (http://hermeneuti.ca/voyeur/) to derive most frequently used terms (applying an English language stoplist). Table 1 contains those comparative results.

0.0069049955 = product of:
  0.055239964 = sum of:
    0.055239964 = weight(_text_:world in 4880) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055239964 = score(doc=4880,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16259687 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.33973572 = fieldWeight in 4880, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4880)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Knowledge organization for a sustainable world: challenges and perspectives for cultural, scientific, and technological sharing in a connected society : proceedings of the Fourteenth International ISKO Conference 27-29 September 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil / organized by International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO-Brazil, São Paulo State University ; edited by José Augusto Chaves Guimarães, Suellen Oliveira Milani, Vera Dodebei

0.0069049955 = product of:
  0.055239964 = sum of:
    0.055239964 = weight(_text_:world in 4891) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055239964 = score(doc=4891,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16259687 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.33973572 = fieldWeight in 4891, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4891)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Knowledge organization for a sustainable world: challenges and perspectives for cultural, scientific, and technological sharing in a connected society : proceedings of the Fourteenth International ISKO Conference 27-29 September 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil / organized by International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO-Brazil, São Paulo State University ; edited by José Augusto Chaves Guimarães, Suellen Oliveira Milani, Vera Dodebei

0.0069049955 = product of:
  0.055239964 = sum of:
    0.055239964 = weight(_text_:world in 4899) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055239964 = score(doc=4899,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16259687 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.33973572 = fieldWeight in 4899, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4899)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Knowledge organization for a sustainable world: challenges and perspectives for cultural, scientific, and technological sharing in a connected society : proceedings of the Fourteenth International ISKO Conference 27-29 September 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil / organized by International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO-Brazil, São Paulo State University ; edited by José Augusto Chaves Guimarães, Suellen Oliveira Milani, Vera Dodebei

0.0069049955 = product of:
  0.055239964 = sum of:
    0.055239964 = weight(_text_:world in 4957) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.055239964 = score(doc=4957,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.16259687 = queryWeight, product of:
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.33973572 = fieldWeight in 4957, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          3.8436708 = idf(docFreq=2573, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=4957)
  0.125 = coord(1/8)

Source

Knowledge organization for a sustainable world: challenges and perspectives for cultural, scientific, and technological sharing in a connected society : proceedings of the Fourteenth International ISKO Conference 27-29 September 2016, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil / organized by International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO), ISKO-Brazil, São Paulo State University ; edited by José Augusto Chaves Guimarães, Suellen Oliveira Milani, Vera Dodebei

0.0068984097 = product of:
  0.027593639 = sum of:
    0.012473618 = weight(_text_:information in 5652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012473618 = score(doc=5652,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 5652, 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=5652)
    0.01512002 = product of:
      0.03024004 = sum of:
        0.03024004 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5652) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03024004 = score(doc=5652,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = queryNorm
            0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 5652, 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=5652)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

From a historical perspective, one could consider the modern library catalog to be that bibliographical apparatus that stretches at least from Thomas Hyde's catalog for the Bodleian Library at Oxford to the near present. Mai and other recent authors have suggested postmodern approaches to knowledge organization. In these, we realize that there is no single and unique order of knowledge or documents but rather there are many appropriate orders, all of them contextually dependent. Works (oeuvres, opera, Werke, etc.), as are musical works, literary works, works of art, etc., are and always have been key entities for information retrieval. Yet catalogs in the modern era were designed to inventory (first) and retrieve (second) specific documents. From Hyde's catalog for the Bodleian until the late twentieth century, developments are epistemologically pragmatic--reflected in the structure of catalog records, in the rules for main entry headings, and in the rules for filing in card catalogs. After 1980 developments become empirical-reflected in research conducted by Tillett, Yee, Smiraglia, Leazer, Carlyle, and Vellucci. The influence of empiricism on the pragmatic notion of "the work" has led to increased focus on the concept of the work. The challenge for the postmodern online catalog is to fully embrace the concept of "the work," finally to facilitate it as a prime objective for information retrieval.

Imprint

New York : Haworth Information Press

0.0068984097 = product of:
  0.027593639 = sum of:
    0.012473618 = weight(_text_:information in 5312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.012473618 = score(doc=5312,freq=6.0), product of:
        0.0742611 = queryWeight, product of:
          1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
          0.042302497 = queryNorm
        0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 5312, 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=5312)
    0.01512002 = product of:
      0.03024004 = sum of:
        0.03024004 = weight(_text_:retrieval in 5312) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03024004 = score(doc=5312,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.12796146 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.024915 = idf(docFreq=5836, maxDocs=44218)
              0.042302497 = queryNorm
            0.23632148 = fieldWeight in 5312, 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=5312)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.25 = coord(2/8)

Abstract

A work is a deliberately created informing entity intended for communication. A work consists of abstract intellectual content that is distinct from any object that is its carrier. In library and information science, the importance of the work lies squarely with the problem of information retrieval. Works are mentefacts-intellectual (or mental) constructs that serve as artifacts of the cultures in which they arise. The meaning of a work is abstract at every level, from its creator's conception of it, to its reception and inherence by its consumers. Works are a kind of informing object and are subject to the phenomenon of instantiation, or realization over time. Research has indicated a base typology of instantiation. The problem for information retrieval is to simultaneously collocate and disambiguate large sets of instantiations. Cataloging and bibliographc tradition stipulate an alphabetico-classed arrangement of works based on an authorship principle. FRBR provided an entity-relationship schema for enhanced control of works in future catalogs, which has been incorporated into RDA. FRBRoo provides an empirically more precise model of work entities as informing objects and a schema for their representation in knowledge organization systems.