Search (70 results, page 1 of 4)

  • × author_ss:"Hjoerland, B."
  1. Hjoerland, B.: Library and information science and the philosophy of science (2005) 0.03 
    0.026780019 = product of:
  0.100425065 = sum of:
    0.01908586 = product of:
      0.03817172 = sum of:
        0.03817172 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 4404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03817172 = score(doc=4404,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.2955047 = fieldWeight in 4404, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4404)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.038981467 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 4404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038981467 = score(doc=4404,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13053758 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.29862255 = fieldWeight in 4404, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4404)
    0.03817172 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 4404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03817172 = score(doc=4404,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.2955047 = fieldWeight in 4404, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4404)
    0.0041860198 = product of:
      0.0083720395 = sum of:
        0.0083720395 = weight(_text_:information in 4404) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0083720395 = score(doc=4404,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.16457605 = fieldWeight in 4404, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4404)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this article is to introduce the special issue of Journal of Documentation about library and information science (LIS) and the philosophy of science. Design/methodology/approach - The most important earlier collected works about metatheories and philosophies of science within LIS are listed. Findings - It is claimed that Sweden probably is the country in which philosophy of science has the highest priority in LIS education. The plan of the guest editor was that each epistemological position should be both introduced and interpreted in a LIS context together with a review of its influence within the field and an evaluation of the pros and cons of that position. This was only an ideal plan. It is argued that it is important that such knowledge and debate are available within the LIS-literature itself and that the answers to such questions as "What is positivism?" are not trivial ones. Originality/value - The introduction is written to assist readers overviewing the issue and share the thoughts of the editor in planning the issue.
    Field
    Bibliothekswesen
    Informationswissenschaft
  2. Hjoerland, B.: Comments on the articles and proposals for further work (2005) 0.03 
    0.02645307 = product of:
  0.09919901 = sum of:
    0.01908586 = product of:
      0.03817172 = sum of:
        0.03817172 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 4409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.03817172 = score(doc=4409,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.2955047 = fieldWeight in 4409, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4409)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.038981467 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 4409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038981467 = score(doc=4409,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13053758 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.29862255 = fieldWeight in 4409, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4409)
    0.03817172 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 4409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.03817172 = score(doc=4409,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.2955047 = fieldWeight in 4409, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4409)
    0.002959963 = product of:
      0.005919926 = sum of:
        0.005919926 = weight(_text_:information in 4409) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005919926 = score(doc=4409,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4409, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4409)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this afterword is to examine which questions have been illuminated in the present issue and which theoretical problems still need to be addressed. Design/methodology/approach - Examines articles in this issue. Findings - Many epistemological views, e.g. social constructivism, critical theory, feminist epistemology, postmodernism and systems theory, need to be considered more deeply within library and information science (LIS). For some of the other epistemologies such as phenomenology and (post)structuralism there is still a need for deeper explorations of their potential contributions. Finally eclecticism is discussed as one way of coping with different theories in a field. Originality/value - The value of this afterword is to contribute to future reflections and debates concerning the philosophical basis of LIS and the specific contributions of specific systems of thought.
    Field
    Informationswissenschaft
    Bibliothekswesen
  3. Hjoerland, B.: Empiricism, rationalism and positivism in library and information science (2005) 0.02 
    0.022701995 = product of:
  0.08513248 = sum of:
    0.015904883 = product of:
      0.031809766 = sum of:
        0.031809766 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 4415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.031809766 = score(doc=4415,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.24625391 = fieldWeight in 4415, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4415)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    0.032484557 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 4415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032484557 = score(doc=4415,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13053758 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 4415, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4415)
    0.031809766 = weight(_text_:bibliothekswesen in 4415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.031809766 = score(doc=4415,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.12917466 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.24625391 = fieldWeight in 4415, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.457672 = idf(docFreq=1392, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4415)
    0.0049332716 = product of:
      0.009866543 = sum of:
        0.009866543 = weight(_text_:information in 4415) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009866543 = score(doc=4415,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 4415, 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=4415)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.26666668 = coord(4/15)
    Abstract
    Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to examine the importance and influence of the epistemologies: "empiricism", "rationalism" and "positivism" in library and information science (LIS). Design/methodology/approach - First, outlines the historical development of these epistemologies, by discussing and identifying basic characteristics in them and by introducing the criticism that has been raised against these views. Second, their importance for and influence in LIS have been examined. Findings - The findings of this paper are that it is not a trivial matter to define those epistemologies and to characterise their influence. Many different interpretations exist and there is no consensus regarding current influence of positivism in LIS. Arguments are put forward that empiricism and positivism are still dominant within LIS and specific examples of the influence on positivism in LIS are provided. A specific analysis is made of the empiricist view of information seeking and it is shown that empiricism may be regarded as a normative theory of information seeking and knowledge organisation. Originality/value - The paper discusses basic theoretical issues that are important for the further development of LIS as a scholarly field.
    Field
    Informationswissenschaft
    Bibliothekswesen
  4. Hjoerland, B.: Theories of knowledge organization - theories of knowledge (2017) 0.02 
    0.021388441 = product of:
  0.10694221 = sum of:
    0.022018395 = weight(_text_:und in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.022018395 = score(doc=3494,freq=8.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.34282678 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
          2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
            8.0 = termFreq=8.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
    0.04547838 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.04547838 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13053758 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.348393 = fieldWeight in 3494, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3494)
    0.039445434 = sum of:
      0.011962548 = weight(_text_:information in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.011962548 = score(doc=3494,freq=6.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = 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)
      0.027482886 = weight(_text_:22 in 3494) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027482886 = score(doc=3494,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = 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)
  0.2 = coord(3/15)
    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
  5. Hjoerland, B.: ¬The nature of information science and its core concepts (2014) 0.01 
    0.0115113305 = product of:
  0.08633497 = sum of:
    0.077962935 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 1318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.077962935 = score(doc=1318,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13053758 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.5972451 = fieldWeight in 1318, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1318)
    0.0083720395 = product of:
      0.016744079 = sum of:
        0.016744079 = weight(_text_:information in 1318) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016744079 = score(doc=1318,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.3291521 = fieldWeight in 1318, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=1318)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    Field
    Informationswissenschaft
    Source
    Theories of information, communication and knowledge : a multidisciplinary approach. Eds.: F. Ibekwe-SanJuan u. T.M. Dousa
  6. Hjoerland, B.: ¬The importance of theories of knowledge : indexing and information retrieval as an example (2011) 0.01 
    0.010103411 = product of:
  0.07577558 = sum of:
    0.038981467 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.038981467 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13053758 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.29862255 = fieldWeight in 4359, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4359)
    0.036794115 = sum of:
      0.013237357 = weight(_text_:information in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.013237357 = score(doc=4359,freq=10.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = 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)
      0.023556758 = weight(_text_:22 in 4359) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.023556758 = score(doc=4359,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = 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)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    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
    Field
    Informationswissenschaft
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.1, S.72-77
  7. Hjoerland, B.: ¬The importance of theories of knowledge : browsing as an example (2011) 0.01 
    0.0051368745 = product of:
  0.038526557 = sum of:
    0.032484557 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 4774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032484557 = score(doc=4774,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13053758 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 4774, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4774)
    0.006041999 = product of:
      0.012083998 = sum of:
        0.012083998 = weight(_text_:information in 4774) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.012083998 = score(doc=4774,freq=12.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.23754507 = fieldWeight in 4774, 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=4774)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    Abstract
    The study on information science (IS) by Bates (2007) is an important contribution to the literature on browsing in IS. It is explicitly based on "behavioural science." I use this article as the point of departure for demonstrating how more social and interpretative understandings may provide fruitful improvements for research in information seeking, browsing, and related phenomena. It is part of my ongoing publication of articles about philosophical issues in IS and it is intended to be accompanied by analyses of other examples of contributions to core issues in IS. Although it is mainly formulated as a discussion based on a specific paper, it should be seen as part of a general discussion of the philosophical foundation of IS and as support for the emerging social paradigm in this field. The article argues that human browsing should not be conceptualized primarily in biological terms and should not be understood as random exploratory processes, but rather it should be seen as a kind of orienting strategy governed by people's metatheories or "paradigms." Information professionals should know how different metatheories are distributed in the information ecology and, thus, be able to help people developing fruitful browsing strategies.
    Field
    Informationswissenschaft
    Footnote
    Vgl. auch: Bates, M.J.: Birger Hjørland's Manichean misconstruction of Marcia Bates' work. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.10, S.2038-2044.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(2011) no.3, S.594-603
  8. Hjoerland, B.: ¬The foundation of information science : one world or three? A discussion of Gnoli (2018) (2019) 0.00 
    0.0049009197 = product of:
  0.036756895 = sum of:
    0.032484557 = weight(_text_:informationswissenschaft in 4626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.032484557 = score(doc=4626,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.13053758 = queryWeight, product of:
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.24885213 = fieldWeight in 4626, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          4.504705 = idf(docFreq=1328, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4626)
    0.004272339 = product of:
      0.008544678 = sum of:
        0.008544678 = weight(_text_:information in 4626) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008544678 = score(doc=4626,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    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.
    Field
    Informationswissenschaft
  9. Hjoerland, B.: Theory of information science : Reply to Professor Gernot Wersig (1998) 0.00 
    0.0036326605 = product of:
  0.027244952 = sum of:
    0.018872911 = weight(_text_:und in 403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.018872911 = score(doc=403,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.29385152 = fieldWeight in 403, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=403)
    0.0083720395 = product of:
      0.016744079 = sum of:
        0.016744079 = weight(_text_:information in 403) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.016744079 = score(doc=403,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.3291521 = fieldWeight in 403, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.09375 = fieldNorm(doc=403)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    Source
    nfd Information - Wissenschaft und Praxis. 49(1998) H.2, S.122-126
  10. Hjoerland, B.: Information: objective or subjective/situational? (2007) 0.00 
    0.0028854262 = product of:
  0.021640696 = sum of:
    0.009436456 = weight(_text_:und in 5074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009436456 = score(doc=5074,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.14692576 = fieldWeight in 5074, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5074)
    0.012204239 = product of:
      0.024408478 = sum of:
        0.024408478 = weight(_text_:information in 5074) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.024408478 = score(doc=5074,freq=34.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.4798175 = fieldWeight in 5074, product of:
              5.8309517 = tf(freq=34.0), with freq of:
                34.0 = termFreq=34.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=5074)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    Abstract
    This article contrasts Bates' understanding of information as an observer-independent phenomenon with an understanding of information as situational, put forward by, among others, Bateson, Yovits, Spang-Hanssen, Brier, Buckland, Goguen, and Hjorland. The conflict between objective and subjective ways of understanding information corresponds to the conflict between an understanding of information as a thing or a substance versus an understanding of it as a sign. It is a fundamental distinction that involves a whole theory of knowledge, and it has roots back to different metaphors applied in Shannon's information theory. It is argued that a subject-dependent/ situation specific understanding of information is best suited to fulfill the needs in information science and that it is urgent for us to base Information Science (IS; or Library and Information Science, LIS) on this alternative theoretical frame.
    Content
    Bezugnahme auf: Bates, M.J.: Fundamental forms of information. In: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(2006), no.8, S.1033-1045 und Bates, M.J.: Information and knowledge: an evolutionary framework for information science. In: Information research, 10(2005) no.4.
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 58(2007) no.10, S.1448-1456
    Theme
    Information
  11. Hjoerland, B.; Christensen, F.S.: Work tasks and socio-cognitive relevance : a specific example (2002) 0.00 
    0.0024833512 = product of:
  0.037250265 = sum of:
    0.037250265 = sum of:
      0.009767379 = weight(_text_:information in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009767379 = score(doc=5237,freq=4.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.1920054 = fieldWeight in 5237, product of:
            2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
              4.0 = termFreq=4.0
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=5237)
      0.027482886 = weight(_text_:22 in 5237) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.027482886 = score(doc=5237,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.2708308 = fieldWeight in 5237, 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=5237)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    Hjorland and Christensen provide an analyzed example in order to clarify their views on relevance. A physician's information seeking focus in dealing with mental illness is seen as largely determined by his social cognitive state, with complexity increasing as the individual's understanding of the topic deviates from mainstream thinking. The physician's viewpoint on the disease will influence terminology utilized, and an eclectic attitude toward the disease will result in more broad criteria of relevance. Relevance is seen as a tool toward meeting an individual goal.
    Date
    21. 7.2006 14:11:22
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 53(2002) no.11, S.960-965
  12. Hjoerland, B.: Classical databases and knowledge organisation : a case for Boolean retrieval and human decision-making during search (2014) 0.00 
    0.0019664785 = product of:
  0.029497176 = sum of:
    0.029497176 = sum of:
      0.009866543 = weight(_text_:information in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009866543 = score(doc=1398,freq=8.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = 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)
      0.019630633 = weight(_text_:22 in 1398) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.019630633 = score(doc=1398,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = 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)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    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
  13. Hjoerland, B.: Concept theory (2009) 0.00 
    0.0019186425 = product of:
  0.0143898185 = sum of:
    0.007863713 = weight(_text_:und in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007863713 = score(doc=3461,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.12243814 = fieldWeight in 3461, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3461)
    0.0065261046 = product of:
      0.013052209 = sum of:
        0.013052209 = weight(_text_:information in 3461) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.013052209 = score(doc=3461,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.256578 = fieldWeight in 3461, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3461)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    Abstract
    Concept theory is an extremely broad, interdisciplinary and complex field of research related to many deep fields with very long historical traditions without much consensus. However, information science and knowledge organization cannot avoid relating to theories of concepts. Knowledge organizing systems (e.g., classification systems, thesauri, and ontologies) should be understood as systems basically organizing concepts and their semantic relations. The same is the case with information retrieval systems. Different theories of concepts have different implications for how to construe, evaluate, and use such systems. Based on a post-Kuhnian view of paradigms, this article put forward arguments that the best understanding and classification of theories of concepts is to view and classify them in accordance with epistemological theories (empiricism, rationalism, historicism, and pragmatism). It is also argued that the historicist and pragmatist understandings of concepts are the most fruitful views and that this understanding may be part of a broader paradigm shift that is also beginning to take place in information science. The importance of historicist and pragmatic theories of concepts for information science is outlined.
    Footnote
    Vgl.: Szostak, R.: Comment on Hjørland's concept theory in: Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 61(2010) no.5, S. 1076-1077 und die Erwiderung darauf von B. Hjoerland (S.1078-1080)
    Source
    Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 60(2009) no.8, S.1519-1536
    Theme
    Information
  14. Hjoerland, B.: ¬The controversy over the concept of information : a rejoinder to Professor Bates (2009) 0.00 
    0.0017574675 = product of:
  0.026362011 = sum of:
    0.026362011 = sum of:
      0.016546695 = weight(_text_:information in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.016546695 = score(doc=2748,freq=90.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = 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)
      0.009815317 = weight(_text_:22 in 2748) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.009815317 = score(doc=2748,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = 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)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    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
  15. Hjoerland, B.: Are relations in thesauri "context-free, definitional, and true in all possible worlds"? (2015) 0.00 
    0.0017062648 = product of:
  0.012796985 = sum of:
    0.007863713 = weight(_text_:und in 2033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007863713 = score(doc=2033,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.12243814 = fieldWeight in 2033, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2033)
    0.0049332716 = product of:
      0.009866543 = sum of:
        0.009866543 = weight(_text_:information in 2033) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009866543 = score(doc=2033,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.19395474 = fieldWeight in 2033, 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=2033)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    Abstract
    Much of the literature of information science and knowledge organization has accepted and built upon Elaine Svenonius's (2004) claim that "paradigmatic relationships are those that are context-free, definitional, and true in all possible worlds" (p. 583). At the same time, the literature demonstrates a common understanding that paradigmatic relations are the kinds of semantic relations used in thesauri and other knowledge organization systems (including equivalence relations, hierarchical relations, and associative relations). This understanding is problematic and harmful because it directs attention away from the empirical and contextual basis for knowledge-organizing systems. Whether A is a kind of X is certainly not context-free and definitional in empirical sciences or in much everyday information. Semantic relations are theory-dependent and, in biology, for example, a scientific revolution has taken place in which many relations have changed following the new taxonomic paradigm named "cladism." This biological example is not an exception, but the norm. Semantic relations including paradigmatic relations are not a priori but are dependent on subject knowledge, scientific findings, and paradigms. As long as information scientists and knowledge organizers isolate themselves from subject knowledge, knowledge organization cannot possibly progress.
    Source
    Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 66(2015) no.7, S.1367-1373
    Theme
    Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus
  16. Hjoerland, B.; Scerri, E.; Dupré, J.: Forum: The Philosophy of Classification : The Periodic Table and the Philosophy of Classification - What is the Nature of the Periodic Table as a Classification System? - A Note on the Debate Between Hjørland and Scerri on the Significance of the Periodic Table (2011) 0.00 
    0.0016528559 = product of:
  0.0123964185 = sum of:
    0.009436456 = weight(_text_:und in 4294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.009436456 = score(doc=4294,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.14692576 = fieldWeight in 4294, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4294)
    0.002959963 = product of:
      0.005919926 = sum of:
        0.005919926 = weight(_text_:information in 4294) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.005919926 = score(doc=4294,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.116372846 = fieldWeight in 4294, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=4294)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    Abstract
    Thanks to Professor Eric Scerri for engaging in debate in this journal (Scerri 2011) by replying to my review (Hjørland 2008a) of his book (Scerri 2007). One of my points has been that we in our community (Knowledge Organization, KO / Library and Information Science, LIS) have been too isolated from broader academic fields related to classification and the organization of knowledge. The present debate is a step towards reversing this situation. Bezug zu: Scerri, E.R.: The periodic table: its story and its significance. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2007. xxii, 346 S. und die Rezension dazu in: KO 35(2008) no.4, S.251-254 (B. Hjoerland).
  17. Hjoerland, B.: User-based and cognitive approaches to knowledge organization : a theoretical analysis of the research literature (2013) 0.00 
    0.0016375937 = product of:
  0.024563905 = sum of:
    0.024563905 = sum of:
      0.0049332716 = weight(_text_:information in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0049332716 = score(doc=629,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 629, 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=629)
      0.019630633 = weight(_text_:22 in 629) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.019630633 = score(doc=629,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 629, 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=629)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    In the 1970s and 1980s, forms of user-based and cognitive approaches to knowledge organization came to the forefront as part of the overall development in library and information science and in the broader society. The specific nature of user-based approaches is their basis in the empirical studies of users or the principle that users need to be involved in the construction of knowledge organization systems. It might seem obvious that user-friendly systems should be designed on user studies or user involvement, but extremely successful systems such as Apple's iPhone, Dialog's search system and Google's PageRank are not based on the empirical studies of users. In knowledge organization, the Book House System is one example of a system based on user studies. In cognitive science the important WordNet database is claimed to be based on psychological research. This article considers such examples. The role of the user is often confused with the role of subjectivity. Knowledge organization systems cannot be objective and must therefore, by implication, be based on some kind of subjectivity. This subjectivity should, however, be derived from collective views in discourse communities rather than be derived from studies of individuals or from the study ofabstract minds.
    Date
    22. 2.2013 11:49:13
  18. Hjoerland, B.: Table of contents (ToC) (2022) 0.00 
    0.0016375937 = product of:
  0.024563905 = sum of:
    0.024563905 = sum of:
      0.0049332716 = weight(_text_:information in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.0049332716 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
            1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.09697737 = fieldWeight in 1096, 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=1096)
      0.019630633 = weight(_text_:22 in 1096) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
        0.019630633 = score(doc=1096,freq=2.0), product of:
          0.101476215 = queryWeight, product of:
            3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
            0.028978055 = queryNorm
          0.19345059 = fieldWeight in 1096, 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=1096)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    Abstract
    A table of contents (ToC) is a kind of document representation as well as a paratext and a kind of finding device to the document it represents. TOCs are very common in books and some other kinds of documents, but not in all kinds. This article discusses the definition and functions of ToC, normative guidelines for their design, and the history and forms of ToC in different kinds of documents and media. A main part of the article is about the role of ToC in information searching, in current awareness services and as items added to bibliographical records. The introduction and the conclusion focus on the core theoretical issues concerning ToCs. Should they be document-oriented or request-oriented, neutral, or policy-oriented, objective, or subjective? It is concluded that because of the special functions of ToCs, the arguments for the request-oriented (policy-oriented, subjective) view are weaker than they are in relation to indexing and knowledge organization in general. Apart from level of granularity, the evaluation of a ToC is difficult to separate from the evaluation of the structuring and naming of the elements of the structure of the document it represents.
    Date
    18.11.2023 13:47:22
  19. Hjoerland, B.: Does the traditional thesaurus have a place in modern information retrieval? (2016) 0.00 
    0.0016181404 = product of:
  0.012136052 = sum of:
    0.007863713 = weight(_text_:und in 2915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
      0.007863713 = score(doc=2915,freq=2.0), product of:
        0.06422601 = queryWeight, product of:
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.028978055 = queryNorm
        0.12243814 = fieldWeight in 2915, product of:
          1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
            2.0 = termFreq=2.0
          2.216367 = idf(docFreq=13101, maxDocs=44218)
          0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2915)
    0.004272339 = product of:
      0.008544678 = sum of:
        0.008544678 = weight(_text_:information in 2915) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008544678 = score(doc=2915,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = queryNorm
            0.16796975 = fieldWeight in 2915, 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=2915)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.13333334 = coord(2/15)
    Abstract
    The introduction (1.0) of this article considers the status of the thesaurus within LIS and asks about the future prospect for thesauri. The main following points are: (2.0) Any knowledge organization system (KOS) is today threatened by Google-like systems, and it is therefore important to consider if there still is a need for knowledge organization (KO) in the traditional sense. (3.0) A thesaurus is a somewhat reduced form of KOS compared to, for example, an ontology, and its "bundling" and restricted number of semantic relations has never been justified theoretically or empirically. Which semantic relations are most fruitful for a given task is thus an open question, and different domains may need different kinds of KOS including different sets of relations between terms. (4.0) A KOS is a controlled vocabulary (CV) and should not be considered a "perfect language" (Eco 1995) that is simply able to remove the ambiguity of natural language; rather much ambiguity in language represents a battle between many "voices" (Bakhtin 1981) or "paradigms" (Kuhn 1962). In this perspective, a specific KOS, e.g. a specific thesaurus, is just one "voice" among many voices, and that voice has to demonstrate its authority and utility. It is concluded (5.0) that the traditional thesaurus does not have a place in modern information retrieval, but that more flexible semantic tools based on proper studies of domains will always be important.
    Content
    Beitrag in einem Special issue: The Great Debate: "This House Believes that the Traditional Thesaurus has no Place in Modern Information Retrieval." [19 February 2015, 14:00-17:30 preceded by ISKO UK AGM and followed by networking, wine and nibbles; vgl.: http://www.iskouk.org/content/great-debate].
    Theme
    Konzeption und Anwendung des Prinzips Thesaurus
  20. Hjoerland, B.: Information (2023) 0.00 
    7.975032E-4 = product of:
  0.011962548 = sum of:
    0.011962548 = product of:
      0.023925096 = sum of:
        0.023925096 = weight(_text_:information in 1118) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.023925096 = score(doc=1118,freq=24.0), product of:
            0.050870337 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.7554779 = idf(docFreq=20772, maxDocs=44218)
              0.028978055 = 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)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.06666667 = coord(1/15)
    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

Authors

Years

Languages

  • e 69
  • dk 1
  • More… Less…

Types

  • a 67
  • el 4
  • d 1
  • m 1
  • More… Less…

Themes

Subjects

Classifications